I WAS RIGHT! I told you all.

[Jester]

Van Damme, Chuck Norris, or GK? I guess I won't know....

[The Stryker]

I think you're all seriously underestimating the sheer power of Rob Van Dam.

[dingodile555]

Rob Van Dam was a legend but drugs will get you nowhere little Robert son. (although I'm probably about 30 years younger than him)

Chuck Norris is a better legend, did you see the Roundhouse he hit Mr Fuji with during Undertaker vs Yokozuna casket match? (the one without like 30 run-ins)

[Buslady]

Global Warming is a myth.
We have about 100 years or so of weather data.

Okay how old is earth?

Tell me the climate patterns of those billions of years.

Earth is a living breathing rock, it's never static, it is always changing. It warms up, it cools down, it warms up,etc...

What they say, "Nature has a way."

[愛]

I think a lot of people have the idea of "global warming" wrong. It's not necessarily going to bring about the end of the earth. It is simply going to cause a lot of problems for the humans currently living on the earth. The earth isn't going anywhere. We are.

The thing is that we're kind of in too deep when it comes to the global warming, so all we can do is prolong the inevitable. That's the reason they are promoting alternate fuels and things like that. Eventually, the fateful day will come, and hopefully we'll be ready for it. If not, well, I guess we'll just have to adapt to the new environment...or perish. I just hope I'm dead before I see the worst of it.

[Cure]

Originally Posted by Buslady

Global Warming is a myth.
We have about 100 years or so of weather data.

Okay how old is earth?

Tell me the climate patterns of those billions of years.

Earth is a living breathing rock, it's never static, it is always changing. It warms up, it cools down, it warms up,etc...

What they say, "Nature has a way."

You remind me of this lady.

[Machias Banshee]

oh boy.... that woman's just uneducated. The whole global warming thing is contestable on both sides. That woman.... jeez. That's basic 3rd grade science.

[Brodie]

Originally Posted by Buslady

Global Warming is a myth.
We have about 100 years or so of weather data.

What they say, "Nature has a way."

So, you love Michael Crichton? He also said if you believe in global warming, you should believe aliens are responsible.

Global warming exists, and Raphael isn't real, and wouldn't want to romance you.

[Jester]

In response to that woman, when light passes through a prism, in this case, water droplets, it is broken down into its basic light components. We can see the whole spectrum, as opposed to just white light. We see red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet.

As for thinking Global Warming is bunk, there are well researched scientist ON BOTH SIDES!!! Just because Buslady (and I) disagree with the consensus (a word which always seems to be used about Global Climate Change) of our fellow posters, that does not make us idiotic knuckle draggers. My being from Arkansas does that...j/k

[ThirdMarioBro]

I came to the decision that I won't stop eating meat until I discover that the anti-aging/tissue regeneration technology is actually coming. At that point, I'll stop eating meat to keep the cholesterol out of my arteries.

Of course, since the crazies in this nation won't even let us have stem cell research, I might as well not count of that either. They gotta' make sure we all get our "eternal reward" and such.

[GK Punk]

Originally Posted by Brodie

So, you love Michael Crichton? He also said if you believe in global warming, you should believe aliens are responsible.

Global warming exists, and Raphael isn't real, and wouldn't want to romance you.

And there's nothing to be afraid of.

Except Super Aids.

[Machias Banshee]

Or that super huge atom smasher that's supposed to create blackholes and destroy the earth...

*adds a lil more chaos to the mix*

[KROW]

RVD, Van Damme, and Chuck Norris will not fight, but climb the Jesus statue in Rio De Janeiro, perform windmill kicks, and save us all.


With that said:

[Jester]

Nothing....the video is of...nothing.

[KROW]

Originally Posted by Jester

Nothing....the video is of...nothing.

Hmm... YouTube's embed feature must be on the fritz.

[Leogeddon]

lol, now I know hippies are behind this! I must have my meat, kthanx.

Edit:
Here's an article for you:
http://www.dailytech.com/A+Melting+A...ticle12882.htm

Alarm over sea ice loss is misplaced.


Recent short-term gains in Arctic ice coverage indicate nothing about the eventual state of the Arctic. Answers to the long-term status of the region lie in the realm of a scientific branch known as paleoclimatology. What does it tell us?

The Earth is currently in the geologic epoch known as the Holocene. This began nearly 12,000 years ago when the last ice age (more precisely, the Weichsal glacial) ended. Temperatures warmed, glaciers began to retreat, and the Arctic began to melt. This began what is called an interglacial: a warmer period between glaciation.

We tend to think of the poles as immutable, but geologically speaking, permanent polar ice is a rare phenomenon, comprising less than 10% of history. Icecaps form briefly between interglacials, only to melt as the next one begins -- this time around will be no different.

So we know the Arctic will eventually be open water. The only question is how it will affect us.

The language the media uses to describe Arctic melting is usually emotionally loaded. Filled with terms such as "concern", "desperate", even "dying" and "doomed", one would think a living organism was being described. Experts are always quoted as "warning" us, rather than simply speaking -- classic propaganda techniques.

Even the scientists themselves have an emotional stake in the argument. After all, when you've spent your entire career studying Arctic ice, the possibility of it vanishing is understandably horrifying. But what about the rest of us? Will Arctic melting be good or bad?

Let's look at the scorecard.

No change in sea level.
Arctic ice, which floats rather than being anchored on bedrock, doesn't influence sea levels at all. Antarctica and Greenland do, but with one on a long-term cooling trend, and the other melting at the infinitesimal pace of 0.25% per century, there doesn't seem to be any call for alarm. Sea level has been rising for thousands of years; the increase over the next century is expected to be less than 1/3 meter.

"Unimaginable" amounts of new resources.
What's at stake is nothing less than millions of square miles of territory, with some of the richest resources known. 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie in the region. An ice-free Arctic also means access to other mineral resources, and access to rich new fishing grounds. Analysts have hesitated to put a figure on the total worth.

But that's not all. Just the ability to safely navigate the region is itself valuable.

The Northwest and Northeast Passages
First navigated in 1905, the famed Northwest Passage allows ships to cross between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Currently this requires a trip through the Panama Canal, a lengthy, expensive voyage that is barred to the largest "post-Panamax" class of ships. The permanent opening of the Northwest Passage will shave thousands of miles off each crossing, saving millions of barrels of diesel fuel annually, boosting trade and cutting shipment costs for a wide variety of imported and exported goods.

Nearly as important, the Northeast Passage is vital for parts of Northern Europe and Russia. First navigated as far back as 1879, a permanent opening will not only reduce shipping costs between Russia and Northern Europe, it will be a boon for thousands of tiny coastal communities that are currently cut off from the outside world for most of each year.

Though the benefits are unmistakable, a certain segment of the population argues we shouldn't use them. They believe using the planet's resources is immoral, even obscene. But the fact remains that these resources are not just valuable; they're vital. The still-growing populations of China and India are now clamoring for access to the same standard of living the western world enjoys. Granting it to them will require new sources of food, energy, and raw materials.

Russia has already put its foot in the door, claiming some 460,000 square miles of new territory -- an area larger than France and Germany combined. With its fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers already surveying, Russia is brushing aside objections over its cavalier acts.

Some have pointed out that Arctic territorial disputes may lead to conflict, even war. This is possible. But claiming that we shouldn't wish for new resources because we might fight over them is like wishing you won't win the lottery because you and your spouse might argue over how to spend the money. The unlocking of the Arctic's resources is a windfall, no matter how you look at it.

What about the Polar Bears?
Recent research indicates that the species is significantly older than first thought, about 120,000 years old. This means polar bears have survived at least one interglacial before, and therefore doesn't depend on permanent polar ice.

Bears are not the only wildlife in the region. But floating sea ice is not a primary habitat for any species. Many live underneath it, but these are going to benefit dramatically from warmer weather. Higher temperatures equate to more phytoplankton and zooplankton, the base of the pelagic food chain. Measured by total biomass (the sum weight of all living creatures) the northern hemisphere is already seeing increases. That trend should continue.

While it's not impossible that a few ill-adapted species may go extinct, there is no hard evidence to say it will happen. It's also no cause for alarm. Climate change regularly results in a certain degree of extinction; indeed is an essential factor in the freeing of ecological niches so that new species may arise.

Feedback Effects
Sea ice reflects more sunlight than open water. This leads to a positive-feedback effect where decreasing ice leads to further temperature increases. Sounds scary, right? It's not. The reason is a much stronger negative feedback mechanism from basic thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law tells us that radiated energy depends on the fourth power of temperature. Put simply, even a tiny increase in temperature results in more heat loss. This explains why past periods in the Earth's history never led to runaway warming.

Also, the Arctic just doesn't get a lot of sunlight to start with. That's why it’s so cold there, after all. What sun it gets is extremely oblique filtered through much more atmosphere due to the high latitude. While Arctic albedo changes do have an effect, it's very small, possibly even immeasurable on a global scale.

One fact remains without doubt. The warming of the Arctic will not result in our own extinction, or be anything at all but a tremendous boon to mankind and our civilization. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Then Al Gore's at it again with his manbearpig:
http://www.reuters.com/article/envir...rpc=22&sp=true

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people on Wednesday to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.

The former U.S. vice president, whose climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award, told a philanthropic meeting in New York City that "the world has lost ground to the climate crisis."

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.

"I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact," he said. "I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that."

The government says about 28 coal plants are under construction in the United States. Another 20 projects have permits or are near the start of construction.

Scientists say carbon gases from burning fossil fuel for power and transport are a key factor in global warming.

Carbon capture and storage could give coal power an extended lease on life by keeping power plants' greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere and easing climate change.

But no commercial-scale project exists anywhere to demonstrate the technology, partly because it is expected to increase up-front capital costs by an additional 50 percent.

So-called geo-sequestration of carbon sees carbon dioxide liquefied and pumped into underground rock layers for long term storage.

(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Christine Kearney and Xavier Briand)

He wants us to stop polluting with our cars and lightbulbs and now coal, and yet here he is spreading the word through his friggin JET!

[Hannah]

Just because he's hypocritical doesn't mean he's wrong.

[Cure]

Sacrifices need to be made sometimes. You can't expect this man to walk all over the f*cking country. This ain't pioneer times.

[Jester]

So were supposed to conserve while Al Gore jets around telling us we need to use less energy? Why can't he buzz the country in a hybrid car or something. To me it seems like "do as I say, not as I do" and that's not right.

[Leogeddon]

Originally Posted by Hannah

Just because he's hypocritical doesn't mean he's wrong.

Global warmers are costing us our stable energy supply and that will hurt us all. It would take more than 50,000,000 windmills and the entire state of TEXAS to place solar panels just to power half the country. I don't know about you, but I'd like to leave Texas alone instead cause problems for all of their families, the beef ranches, and other resources they provide.

Cooling and heating up "slightly" they say...
Parts of our Nation all the way down to North Carolina were once covered by Glaciers as was many parts of the Midwest. How do you call that "slight cooling when 70% of our Nation and Canada was covered in Glaciers as was over 30% of the ENTIRE world and people are gonna sit there and say "slight cooling"!

Glaciers helped from the Loess Hills in Iowa. Some parts of the Midwest were called the "Driftless region" because no glacier activity occurred, which was surprising

They're either woefully uneducated or just plain lying, but I don't consider massive glaciers covering all of Canada and extending from New York to North Carolina as "slight cooling".

The FACT is earth has SEVERE climate swings.

One more thing that ice was over 1000 feet thick in some places.

It is estimated that average summer temperatures had to be 20 degrees Fahrenheit to form such massive glaciers.

That's a 50 degree swing from average summer temperature today in northern parts of our country.

Yeah "slight cooling" and "slight heating".
How hot did it have to get to melt all that ice???
It had to get very HOT to melt the ice. Average winter temperatures had to go from 20 degrees to over 50 degrees.

That's a 30 degree change. That's DRAMATIC!

So tell me what caused the Global warming that made our Glaciers melt?

What changed the average winter temperature from 20 to 50 degrees??

What restarted the global oceanic "conveyor" i.e the Gulf Stream? What was the physiological phenomenon?

Did you know earth experienced an increase of 22 degrees Fahrenheit in just 50 years 40 degree daily highs shifting to 62 degree highs in a half century.

That's what happened toward the end of Earth's last Ice Age, atmospheric researchers have found.

Analyzing dust in Greenland ice cores scientists found that about 14,700 years ago temperatures suddenly shot up and the climate changed drastically in just 50 years.

It stayed warm for 1,800 years, then plunged back to icy conditions for another 1,200 years, before rapidly getting warmer again.

Drawing a comparison to what scientists know and don't know about global warming today, University of Colorado researcher Jim White said that until they understand the whys and wherefores of sudden upshots in temperatures, "We are speeding blindly down a narrow road, hoping there are no curves ahead."

Bottom line is they're WRONG, this has happened before and even worse.

So until they PROVE what caused these DRASTIC climatic shifts nobody can accuse man because we didn't burn fossil fuels then.

Originally Posted by TheCure

Sacrifices need to be made sometimes. You can't expect this man to walk all over the f*cking country. This ain't pioneer times.

LOL, so you're saying it's okay for him to say: "Don't drive, you'll kill the earth" then hop into his jet and cause even MORE problems that he is trying to fight? It's basically like spraying bug spray at a lighter to kill a fly so it can't harm your fruit just to burn the entire bowl of fruit to a cinder.