[Lazarus Short]

There have been so many changes in our little world over the past several decades, that determining the cause [?] of climate change and/or "global warming" will be a daunting task. The real Cause will become apparent before the scientists have much of a clue...

Laz

 

[uofmtiger]

We have had 4 ice ages (according to the experts). If there was no global warming (or are we calling it "climate change" to cover all possible outcomes now?) North America would still be under tons of ice. Global Warming is a part of the natural cycle...

 

[nibiyabi]

^Bingo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drizek /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don;t understand how someone can suggest that we should kill several hundred million people without getting called out on it. Are you one of those idiots who wanted to nuke iraq? How about Hitler? You like him?

You know a topic is heated when Godwin's Law comes into play early in page 2.

 

[acidbasement]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uofmtiger /img/forum/go_quote.gif We have had 4 ice ages (according to the experts). If there was no global warming (or are we calling it "climate change" to cover all possible outcomes now?) North America would still be under tons of ice. Global Warming is a part of the natural cycle...

The well-documented climatological effects of burning fossil fuels are completely natural; I agree.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uofmtiger /img/forum/go_quote.gif We have had 4 ice ages (according to the experts). If there was no global warming (or are we calling it "climate change" to cover all possible outcomes now?) North America would still be under tons of ice. Global Warming is a part of the natural cycle...

Pole shift and/or Crustal Displacement can account for "Ice Ages" without resorting to global warming or cooling. There is evidence that, prior to its current position, the North Pole was in the vicinity of Hudson's Bay, thus much of North America was under ice. In the meantime, big, hairy elephants roamed the lush, warm plains of Siberia.

Laz

 

[BetaLyr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stewtheking /img/forum/go_quote.gif Global warming => ice caps melt => gulf stream goes south => North America and Northern Europe being under ice. BIG ICE. This means that all of the glaciated soil (the stuff that can actually support crops) will be under nice new fresh glaciers, and we will have nothing to feed the populace of the world with. Cue a major conflict, as those nations with big weapons but no land any more try to get into those countries which still have food.

Did you get that from The Day After Tomorrow?
Theoretically, it's possible. But highly unlikely because the salt concentration of the Gulf Stream/Atlantic Current probably won't become diluted enough for a directional reverse.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirosia /img/forum/go_quote.gif Darwinism is the survival of the fittest. Nazism was a bunch of insecure racists who decided Darwinism was a good excuse to kill people. Or maybe they were just pricks, I dunno.

i'll jump in.

first of all, there's no such thing as "Darwinism." there is evolutionary biology, which, while owing it's very birth to Darwin some 150 years ago, has moved farrrr past his Origin of Species (still a great read though, highly recommended).

secondly, "survival of the fittest" is merely one phrase in Darwin's writings, not some tenet or screed as so many people seem to misapprehend. it simply a partial descriptive of the mechanisms of evolution through natural selection of random mutation.

Darwin never said anything about "strong" people being more worthy than "weak" people to survive. he simply observed those most well-adapted at surviving in a particular environment are more likely to live long enough to reproduce, hence maximizing the adoption of positive, random mutations.

thirdly, Hitler did not use Darwin's writings as any sort of justification for his genocide. that's a canard propagated mostly by people who think the Earth is 10,000 years old or less.

Finally, it seems to me that lots of people from all different angles are spouting off on several subjects that they know little about.

/soapbox

 

[Kirosia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif i'll jump in. /soapbox

I can't believe you actually analyzed my post. What's-his-face said so and so, so I replied by using so and so, even though so and so made little sense. I just said it to shut him up, I knew I was bulls****g. (Was the "Or maybe they were just pricks" part not a dead giveaway?)

Quote:

Finally, it seems to me that lots of people from all different angles are spouting off on several subjects that they know little about.

There's irony in there somewhere.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirosia /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't believe you actually analyzed my post. What's-his-face said so and so, so I replied by using so and so, even though so and so made little sense. I just said it to shut him up, I knew I was bulls****g. (Was the "Or maybe they were just pricks" part not a dead giveaway?)

let me clarify, and apologize... yours was simply the last post in the exchange, i didn't mean to pick on you. though i will admit that the phrase "darwinism is the survival of the fittest" did raise my hackles a bit.

it's strange how up in arms people seem to get simply from scientific research that lay people, including myself, rarely understand.

people are very quick to not simply distrust science, but actually get pissed off about it... when they (speaking generally, here) are just as quick to 100% buy into the balms and platitudes of elected representatives or established dogma... absent of any supporting data whatsoever.

compound this with the misuse of important, real, data-supported scientific work, and i just get my knickers in a twist.


Quote:

There's irony in there somewhere.

i won't disagree with you on that.

 

[Kirosia]

Quote:

though i will admit that the phrase "darwinism is the survival of the fittest" did raise my hackles a bit.

I guess intentionally using misinformation for an effective put-down does make me a bit of a prick.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirosia /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess intentionally using misinformation for an effective put-down does make me a bit of a prick.

not at all... it just lowers the effectiveness of the put down.

although it's nice to know that we can use the word prick without attracting the asterisk virus.

 

[Kirosia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif not at all... it just lowers the effectiveness of the put down.

Depends on the situation. He used "Nazism" and "survival of the fittest", so I countered with "Darwinism" and "survival of the fittest". It's like when someone calls your mom a person, so you call his mom an even bigger person, who banged some hobo and gave birth to him. It hits harder than "my mom is not a person, and here's why...".

Quote:

although it's nice to know that we can use the word prick without attracting the asterisk virus.

Maybe because it has a legitimate meaning? "I want to prick you!"

 

[Lazarus Short]

Cool! A self-extinguishing flame war..

 

[stewtheking]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BetaLyr /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you get that from The Day After Tomorrow? Theoretically, it's possible. But highly unlikely because the salt concentration of the Gulf Stream/Atlantic Current probably won't become diluted enough for a directional reverse.

Nope, and I am not labouring under the misapprehension that it'll happen overnight either, more like a generation or two. And I don't mean a directional reverse, I mean the stream just ends up circling further south, so the warm wet air hits north Africa, rather than northern Europe. The deserts go green (but without enough good soil to grow much more than grass), and Europe goes rather chilly.

 

[drizek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif i'll jump in. first of all, there's no such thing as "Darwinism." there is evolutionary biology, which, while owing it's very birth to Darwin some 150 years ago, has moved farrrr past his Origin of Species (still a great read though, highly recommended). secondly, "survival of the fittest"

I never mentioned darwin. I was just talking about Hitler.

Nazism could better be described as the genocide of the "unfit" as opposed to the survival of the fittest. That is what the original poster was advocating (or joking about, or whatever, its kinda pointless now). In real terms, "increasing" global warming would basically be a genocide of the worlds poor as rich people and rich countries will be able to avoid the worst of it.

Quote:

Darwin never said anything about "strong" people being more worthy than "weak" people to survive. he simply observed those most well-adapted at surviving in a particular environment are more likely to live long enough to reproduce, hence maximizing the adoption of positive, random mutations.

Thank you. I remember having to have this type of debate with people all the time. Even an atheist I was talking to was convinced that darwin was a supporter of eugenics.

Quote:

Finally, it seems to me that lots of people from all different angles are spouting off on several subjects that they know little about.

I made a comment about the Clean Air Act, but nobody responded to that...