1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LOL What endless exposure to internet idiocy causes me to do...

Discussion in 'General' started by willyolio, 30 Oct 2011.

  1. willyolio

    willyolio New Member

    Joined:
    17 Feb 2007
    Posts:
    205
    Likes Received:
    11
    ...make a comic about it.

    http://imgur.com/QvBIp

    seriously, though, i'm having a lot of trouble trying to understand these conspiracy theorists' minds.
     
  2. Blazza181

    Blazza181 SVM PLACENTA CASEI

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2011
    Posts:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    329
    Oh my goodness - you my sir, are a visionary.

    Just try not to be executed by Hitler III's commie-fascist universal dictatorship. :D
     
  3. Zinfandel

    Zinfandel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    2 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    3,233
    Likes Received:
    176
    Frankly, anthropogenic climate change existing or not, what we're doing will make no difference what so ever.

    The more I read, the more lectures I attend, the more I'm convinced that the whole industry self perpetuates in order to keep a lot of people in work.

    First of all, the emotionalisation of the subject needs to be removed completely. Secondly, the entire science needs to change its name to adaption science.

    As humans we're incredibly short sighted, so what if we make the ice caps melting for an extra hundred years, or manage to stave off an ice age for a couple of centuries, it means nothing in the long term.

    There is so much that goes on in our local cluster that effects the weather on earth that we have little and no idea about it and thus, studying it is a wonderful thing but currently our knowledge is so short that the actions don't mean much.

    I mean, Kyoto for example, if anyone can prove that reducing man made emissions by 5.2% (And lets not forget that 98% of co2 on earth has nothing to do with humans) would make the blindest bit of difference then great.

    Personally I'm thankfully starting to see a shift in the way it's spoken about, I think strides are being made in the adaption arena. A while back there was a great lecture and the ZSL where much of the talk was about how nature is adapting to climate change and starting to focus on how we can adapt as opposed to trying to keep everything the way it is, which is impossible.

    Adapt or die, that's how it works. The climate will change whatever we do.

    I should also add, I am 100% for green evergy. We're incredibly wasteful as a species and the more we can recycle and the more efficient we can be the better.
     
    Pliqu3011 likes this.
  4. kingred

    kingred Surfacing sucks!

    Joined:
    27 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    87
    CCFL's are ass. Their light is the equivalent to setting fire to a rare bird in terms of hazardous crap and life degredation caused by thermo-cycling.


     
    Last edited by a moderator: 31 Oct 2011
  5. Picarro

    Picarro New Member

    Joined:
    9 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    3,331
    Likes Received:
    134
    Fixed that for you ;)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 31 Oct 2011
  6. kingred

    kingred Surfacing sucks!

    Joined:
    27 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    87
    I actually couldn't find the right video, here is the right one.


     
  7. xXSebaSXx

    xXSebaSXx Active Member

    Joined:
    21 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    496
    Likes Received:
    45

    @ kingred

    All you need is the bit after this "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=" for embeding videos.
     
  8. Ending Credits

    Ending Credits Bunned

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    210

    Yes, because frankly the ancient Babylonians should have done more to reduce religios fundementalism. Seriously, if they'd been more careful 9-11 would never have happened!

    A hundred years is a huge timespan in terms of human advancement. We only got to the moon in the last 50 and we only achieved the first powered flight another 60 years before that.
     
  9. Sloth

    Sloth #yolo #swag

    Joined:
    29 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    208
    I miss when pollution was a major topic of environmental concern. Everyone can agree on cutting down on litter and not dumping hazardous chemicals and materials into streams.
     
  10. eddie543

    eddie543 Snake eyes

    Joined:
    24 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    264
    Likes Received:
    23
    I agree 100% with zinfandel on this.

    It is a highly emotionalised and politicised issue with a lot of stakeholders on both sides in perpetuating either arguement.

    It seems to me through my interpretation of media on the subject is unlike in other areas of science it seems like the pro AGW side seems to be reluctant in investigating factors which could be disproportionately representing the extent or even reality of AGW.

    If you theorise in science that there is a major innaccuracy in the standard model of particle physics, it seems it will be studied and rejected or accepted in a professional manner.

    But on both sides of the AGW debate it seems there is a hell of a lot of language pretty much saying "f*** you, you're wrong". It just seems a bit inconsistent with other areas of science "In AGW someone may say what about urban heat islands or what about the change in distribution of weather stations into underdeveloped usually hotter areas over the last 100 years?" the answer at first that you get usually is something starting in ridiculous and ending in denailists.

    Take that in comparison with the faster than light neutrinos to which physicists say hmm might be right here better check.


    Conspiracy theories about AGW being a group of scientists, policians and eco fascists scheming together for whatever is complete and utter bull. It is not necessary in a world in which anything that relates to the day to day running and prosperity in our lives, whcih is politics and economics, is part of mainstream science.

    It is vastly irrelavent whether this theory is believed or not because more than likely we are going to see a severly restricted supply world wrenching oil, gas and coal some time in the not so distant future. Combating climate change shares many of the same goals.

    Problem being is that the desperation by the political class, the myopia and plain stupidity leads to idiocy such as land for food being used for fuel while people go hungry.
     
  11. Da_Rude_Baboon

    Da_Rude_Baboon What the?

    Joined:
    28 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    135
    It's actually the norm. The misconception is that scientists are rational reasonable people and the reality is there "debates" are comparable to a lot of the heated discussions on here. Scientists build their names and reputations by establishing or overturning existing theories so there is a lot at stake.
     
  12. Blarte

    Blarte Moderate Modder

    Joined:
    15 Jul 2008
    Posts:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    109
    never mind your theory .. 6 bloody 1 .. :)
    whoooohooooo
     
  13. Zinfandel

    Zinfandel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    2 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    3,233
    Likes Received:
    176
    Well the Babylonians didn't know what we know did they?

    You're right! Let's keep doing things the way they've always been done!
     
  14. Sloth

    Sloth #yolo #swag

    Joined:
    29 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    208
    I just glanced over your post but this caught my eye. Surely any credible measurement of "global warming" isn't based on an average of temperates across the world but rather an average of the differences between temperates recorded at each monitoring station? Or, to be even more accurate, the different trends found in temperature changes recorded in different geographical areas.

    I think you've misunderstood, he's saying not to do as we always have. He's saying those extra 100 years of ice caps melting isn't being short sighted, it's actually a very large timeframe for a human which spans multiple generations and anything farther we can't possibly hope to predict. The fact that the Babylonians didn't know what we know is exactly the point: that's why it's so preposterous to consider that people are short sighted when they can't possibly be longer sighted with any accuracy.

    If we have reason to believe that our actions are causing a global environmental change for a duration in the range of 100 years then we're talking about a major impact on humanity, the "long range" of saying it'll eventually cycle back is an assumption which completely ignores what 100 years of human activity may have altered or how those changes may have altered humanity.

    To be honest, you're confusing me a little. Isn't adaption one of the shortest sighted solutions there is? Disregard the future, plan around what's coming at you right now?
     
  15. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,128
    Likes Received:
    375
    I am very curious on what source you used to get that figure.
     

Share This Page