Page 111 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1161101106107108109110111
Results 2,201 to 2,209 of 2209
  1. #2201  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    maybe evidence is a poor choice. I have no findings personally that support this, as I'm not a scientist by any stretch. I should have said "articles", e.g., press releases. You may have noticed that recently the term has changed from "global warming" to "climate change". This is to allow for said findings that have been released in the media.

    Wow, again, I'm not a scientist, or a physics teacher. Does that mean that I should stay clear of the debate and not offer up my thoughts? I assimilate as much as I can from the resources I've stumbled over, and then applied my own experience and logic to the equation, and from all of this formed a conclusion. This could change, of course. I'm open to new points and views. That all said, your model is what was described as being flawed only recently - e.g., data ommitted. My point was hardly a new one.

    Ah, we agree now on one point!
    I'll take the one. I'm not saying you have to be a scientist to debate this. You just included some points and I was asking for "links" to look at the information. On the internet it comes off as much more stern than I intended. Greenhouse effect is a proven process we have witnessed on Venus and Mars.
  2. srswarley's Avatar
    Posts
    43 Posts
    Global Posts
    44 Global Posts
    #2202  
    Being that "global warming" is part of the Earth Sciences.. it will always be a hot topic, regardless of political agendas or actions.

    But if you're in the mood for some light reading.. check out the K/T boundary mass extinction
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2203  
    Quote Originally Posted by srswarley View Post
    Being that "global warming" is part of the Earth Sciences.. it will always be a hot topic, regardless of political agendas or actions.

    But if you're in the mood for some light reading.. check out the K/T boundary mass extinction
    Ahh yes. Nothing like mass extinction to lighten a topic or conversation!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. srswarley's Avatar
    Posts
    43 Posts
    Global Posts
    44 Global Posts
    #2204  
    Well it's real and happened.. I only point it out because it's another hot topic amongst Earth Scientists
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2205  
    Quote Originally Posted by srswarley View Post
    Well it's real and happened.. I only point it out because it's another hot topic amongst Earth Scientists
    Is it still debated to be the cause of the apparent mass extinction? For me, what's missing is the transition of the dino's to birds. Maybe that occured before the k/t incident?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. srswarley's Avatar
    Posts
    43 Posts
    Global Posts
    44 Global Posts
    #2206  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Is it still debated to be the cause of the apparent mass extinction? For me, what's missing is the transition of the dino's to birds. Maybe that occured before the k/t incident?
    It is still a theory yes, along with the Chicxulub incident. Was it one or the other? Did they work in combination? Or was it all coincidence... which is where the debate comes in.

    Dino to bird.. I'm not too clear on, I know there was a dino thought to be an ancestor to the bird and it existed before the event, but I've honestly never looked into it too much (fossils aren't really my area). But I do know that after the almost near extinction (which wasn't even the highest in recording) it took a LONG time for life to come back. Maybe life decided to stay away from the cold blooded and go for a smaller, convenient packaging (equipped with complex thought processes and all)
    Last edited by srswarley; 07/20/2010 at 03:22 PM.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2207  
    Quote Originally Posted by Troll
    Are interest groups and the economies of dependent industries (and their sympathizers) throwing the kitchen sink against progress? Without question.
    That's half the story. In fact, they're defending themselves from the other "interests groups".

    This all boils down to control over trillions of dollars over time, and it's subsequent political control.

    I'm all for change. My concern is how we change; the market driven transition to green technologies over time, versus, the political power grabs we've been witnessing along with the subsequent big corporation alliances. Certain big corporations are poised to exploit the opportunities cap and trade legislation will open up (e.g., General Electric). You might say that the GE's of the world are buying their future by buying elections.

    And you call it "progress". If its based on a false premise, how can it not be called a "false progress"? Again, this is solely about money and political control, not progress.
    Last edited by berdinkerdickle; 07/23/2010 at 03:20 PM.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2208  
    Quote Originally Posted by Troll
    It's the whole story.
    Simple contradiction with nothing behind it. Nice technique.
    Same can be said for technical advancements since the country's inception, from our Agricultural economy to our Industrial economy. Yours is a really poor excuse when our economy rides on it. And why change the poor mental function the US has shown about investing in its longterm domestic interests since the Civil War when foreign war to protect yesterday's standard is so safe and profitable?
    I gave no excuse. You seem to be missing my point totally.
    Forward progress causes pain for those deeply rooted and invested in maintaining yesterday's standard. That's a tough reality, but it is the one which prevents any transition, organic or otherwise, to observing that a petroleum-based economy in the 21st century is a national security and a necessary game-changing issue. We must change for extremely fundamental reasons.
    Great. More "progressive collectivism" mumbo jumbo. Change can be good or bad. I still don't think you've grasped the argument (at least, mine) - this is not simply about change, it's about how change is driven.

    Are you from the intelligentsia?
    No, you could say that, though you'd be terribly misguided and factually wrong.
    You could say that. Care to actually show me where I'm misguided or factually wrong?
    The science proves otherwise despite all the op-eds written by those with a political or economic interest insinuating otherwise. Progress doesn't have a political party unless you lower yourself to it.
    Please enlighten us.... which science "proves otherwise" again?
    Last edited by berdinkerdickle; 07/23/2010 at 03:15 PM.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2209  
    Quote Originally Posted by Troll
    The sand in your ears must be getting in the way.
    I'm done. Save the personal insults for another forum please.
    Last edited by berdinkerdickle; 07/23/2010 at 03:14 PM.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Posting Permissions