I just heard the stupid comment of the week.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, July 27, 2006 08:48
VIEWED: 9073
PAGE 3 of 11
Quote:No AU, that's the problem you are having.
The problem you suffer from is confusing real science w/ pop pseudo science.
Quote:Let me guess, you based that amazing bit of deductive reasoning on Greenlands name, I bet you think Icelands made of ice too.
But you'll never elaborate why Greenland use to be , well, GREEN.
Greenland has had it's ice cored to over 100,000 years, but since that doesn't agree with what you say I'm sure its pseudo pop science.
Greenlands glaciers are melting twice as fast as they were five years ago, but again that's just pseudo pop science.
The rate of climate change is faster than an time we have data for, but since that doesn't fit with AU's belief that's just pseudo pop science.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Greenland was first inhabited about 4,500 years ago. The earliest residents arrived from the west, but either left or died due to periods of exceptionally cold weather and/or poor hunting. Signs of their presence have been found near Maniitsoq. The region seems to have then been uninhabited for about 3,000 years.
The next migration came from the east, following "Erik the Red" Thorwaldsson's exploration of the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he led a group of Viking families from Iceland, and settled at Brattahlid, traditionally known as Qassiarsuk (route map). The climate at this time was very warm, much wamer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time.
http://www.explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa121799.htm
Citizen, continue to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually that's contested, something you'd know if you ever looked at sources other than the ones that support what you want to believe.
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:http://www.explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa121799.htm
Greenland was first inhabited about 4,500 years ago. The earliest residents arrived from the west, but either left or died due to periods of exceptionally cold weather and/or poor hunting. Signs of their presence have been found near Maniitsoq. The region seems to have then been uninhabited for about 3,000 years.
The next migration came from the east, following "Erik the Red" Thorwaldsson's exploration of the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he led a group of Viking families from Iceland, and settled at Brattahlid, traditionally known as Qassiarsuk (route map). The climate at this time was very warm, much wamer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time.
Citizen, continue to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts.
Quote:In other words saying Greenland is like saying "London's streets are paved with gold" which in case you need it pointed out is not the case. London's streets are paved with concrete and paving slabs, not gold, yet they say gold, those crazy people.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/G/Greenlan.asp
From Iceland, Greenland was discovered and S Greenland colonized (c.985) by Eric the Red, a Norseman, who named it Greenland in order to make it seem attractive to potential settlers.
Although I'm sure you won't read this source, it not saying what you want it to and all.
Greenland was never very warm, its ice cover is more than 100,000 years old, but as I said that is just pseudo pop science to you since it doesn't support what you want to believe.
The problem is that you think that the Earth's temperature changing over time proves that global warming isn't happening. This is just a function of you playing favourites with the sources (namely the minority of scientists who happen to work for big polluters, funny that
) because those sources say what you want to hear. If you'd done one ounce of research into the subject instead of letting Bush tell you which scientist to listen to (independent scientist bad, the dentist who says what we want to hear good) you'd know that not only is the speed and general upward trend not precedent but that it closely follows atmospheric factors influenced and caused by Human activity.But all this is pseudo pop science because it's not what you want to believe. If it was left to people like you and GWB we'd still be teaching primary school children about the correctness of the flat Earth theory and how some crazy lying scientists have this huge conspiracy trying to prove the Earth is a sphere.
So AU continue to only look at the side of the argument that supports your narrow under educated view, and remain ignorant of all other facts if they are inconvenient for you.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I find it so amusing that the guy that got you so irate is exactly the same as you! You have both taken a few facts and misinterpretted them to make them fit an erronious hypothesis without consideration of all other factors.
He correctly states that crocodiles have no external genetalia and leaps to the assumption that this is due to mutagenesis from radiation poisoning.
You correctly state that Greenland has historiucally had a warmer climate than it has today. From this you conclude that the current rapid and continuing global climate changes are nothing to be concerned about.
Neither of you seem to know or even wish to consider all possible facts in a reasoned and balanced fashion. At least he seems to be limited by simple ignorance. You appear to be dismissing alternate points of view based on selfish greed.
I'm afraid you leave me with a greater frustration at the stupidity of the world than he does. I at least have the hope that if I met him and gave him evidence that his beliefs are erronious he might be inclined to listen.
___________________
Hissssssssss!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
I find it so amusing that the guy that got you so irate is exactly the same as you! You have both taken a few facts and misinterpretted them to make them fit an erronious hypothesis without consideration of all other factors.
Neither of you seem to know or even wish to consider all possible facts in a reasoned and balanced fashion. At least he seems to be limited by simple ignorance. You appear to be dismissing alternate points of view based on selfish greed.
I'm afraid you leave me with a greater frustration at the stupidity of the world than he does. I at least have the hope that if I met him and gave him evidence that his beliefs are erronious he might be inclined to listen.
While it is noble that you are sticking up for a friend, IMHO everyone is guilty. Why is Citizen's source better than Auraptor's or vice versa? It seems to me that all parties involved think they are right and are either unwilling or unable to rationally discuss alternate viewpoints. Which is why climate change is and will continue to remain a contentious issue.
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rampant stupidity doesn't surprise me anymore. I stopped being surprised by anything when I found that the average IQ in the US and UK is 100. 100!
one of the Forsaken TM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
G.W.
I find it terribly annoying that Bush/War supporters say this "If we are not aggressive and attack Iraq first, we take a huge risk with our own lives. Because THEY MAY come attack us again. We need to be proactive." or something like this. We can put up terror, color-coded alerts on our evening TV screens for this with no whining from cons. This problem MAY affect thousands in our country, how many MAY be affected by GW.
When it comes to GW. If we put warnings on TV and use scare tactics, its all wrong. If we suggest that we better become proactive on GW, it all becomes horseshit to the hardcore right wingers. I cannot f’n believe you are complaining about tax money spent AU; with the money spent on the war.
Now, AU please look at the US and abroad university systems. Look at their findings, can our precious university system be wrong on this large of a scale. As I have said before, if they are failing this badly, we have another huge problem beyond the war and GW.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hear Hear PD. (edited cause I knows good gremmer and speling)
Is it just me, or does the crap this administration is saying and what they are doing sound just like what the administration was saying and doing during Vietnam?
one of the Forsaken TM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, according to my Dad. Who was in Vietnam. He lost it when Nixon said "honorable peace".
Hear this:
My buddy (swear to you), one of the only hardcore conservatives I hang out with, is actually questioning this Admin now. I mean hardcore, former, cold war marine, south carolina, actually liked Strom Thurmon, "my daddy said so, so its good" conservative. That’s when you know it’s bad.
We debated global warming til I was blue in the face. So, I drug his arse to a local bio-fuels event we had recently. He actually clapped and got something out of it. A proud day for me (like converting browncoats actually). We had a dept. of energy guy (Larry Shirley) as a quest speaker. He laid out FACTS and research and gov’t plans. (no crazy liberal media to filter it in my buddy’s mind) But what really got his attention was the money saved (yes AU, taxpayer money) by not having to defend and protect that oil as it gets here from the Arabs. Larry laid those figures out too. So many reasons to change our energy policies right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
While it is noble that you are sticking up for a friend, IMHO everyone is guilty. Why is Citizen's source better than Auraptor's or vice versa? It seems to me that all parties involved think they are right and are either unwilling or unable to rationally discuss alternate viewpoints. Which is why climate change is and will continue to remain a contentious issue.
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
I'm not sure I would count Citizen as a friend as such, I have never met the guy and only occasionally chatted on line. I was more sticking up for the issue. I have had this arguement previously with AuRaptor and looked into all the evidence he presented to support his point of view and did not find them convincing in light of the 5 years of acedemic study I have put into researching evidence both for and against this issue (I am a zoologist by trade and climate change is an accepted fact in the conferences I have been attending with an overwhealming weight of evidence showing a close correlation of changes in animal ranges with changes in seasonal temperature). You just caught a small portion of this 'debate' but generally, as a scientist, I judge any arguement backed up by controlled and peer reviewed study more convincing than those that quote random websites.
But I really don't have any more time to waste on this. I have to write up a year long study I have made proving that the incidence of grass snake sightings in th UK is less than 17% of what it was 30 years ago, with a significantly more southerly distribution pattern. I will not state that this is due entirely to climate change but will suggest that it is a possibility that this could be a factor that could lead to a potential extinction of the UK reptiles. Then I would be sad (or possibly my children would).
___________________
Hissssssssss!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME