Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Man-made Global Warming proven to be a hoax - Page 2

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
November 30, 2009 3:46:02 AM

Interesting interview... (People still use real player??? 1996, that explains it.)

On another note, back on topic, ABC Radio National's counterpoint program just had an interesting discussion referring directly to the issue of politics in science and the need for some peer review reform. I'll try to remember to add some links later.
November 30, 2009 2:40:57 PM

croc said:
All this story proves is that at one university there were some dirty tricks going on. It does not prove or disprove global warning, climate change, or whatever. You seem to have swallowed the US far rights bait hook, line and sinker.


No, it's more than just one university. The corruption extends to Penn State, Arizona State, and other Universities here in the U.S. That is the core of the modelers by which the global warmers get their data that say that the earth is going to burn up if nothing is done, like Al Gore keeps saying. The whole global warming movement is based on those computer models and now these models are shown to be false because of deleted or ignored data that contradicts the whole global warming modeling scheme. So you are way over minimizing this. The whole emphasis of the global warming crowd is basing their claims on these computer models which have been now shown to be wrong, false, untrue.

Currently the climate on the planet IS COOLING. It is not conjecture, it is fact. And the whole projection that the earth is warming is based on a faulty computer models that these universities use. The earth is cooling and that proves their computer models are false. As in WRONG. The whole basis for global warming, as predicted by these computer models, is WRONG. But rather than adjust their models to account for the cooling, adjusting their models according to reality, these "scientists" fudged with the data, adding to the temperature values that is not supported in actual data, adding values made up out of whole cloth, so that their models would be right, so that their personal view would be correct contrary to what actual data and observations were showing. The whole idea of man-made global warming is false because the computer models that they use to predict global warming is wrong, as in UNTRUE, FALSE. So, these scientists are not scientists because real scientists operate on actual data observed. By politicizing their data, they actually become political scientists, politicians, not scientists.

And on top of that, these "scientists" tried to suppress information that did not support their view. And they would not let anyone out of their close knit group see their data. And when a freedom of information act request was made to see their data, they wrote to each other discussing how they were going to hide what they didn't want known about their faulty computer models and faulty research. And these are the people that all the global warming supporters such as Al Gore, and all the other global warming activists claim is the undisputed science. How can faulty computer models and faulty data be undisputed? It's all a lie. there is no other way to put it. Data is either wrong or not. 5 = 5 and not 4 or 3 or 2. They are saying we are seeing 5, but we want it to be 7. So we will change some data so that our data will show 7. That is not science, it's politics. I'd say it's more like you have fallen for the liberal, global warming lie, hook, line, sinker.

We arent' talking about pollution. Pollution is not synonymous with global warming. A piece of paper on the ground is pollution, but is it causing global warming? No. Sure, the air can be cleaner, but dirty air is not synonymous with global warming, it isn't the same. And now we know that CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth because the models that were claiming that it does have been proven to be wrong.
November 30, 2009 2:49:52 PM

croc said:
Look, there are many strange and politicized things going on within the IPCC itself. So a wee bit of corruption at one UK university doesn't get me too upset.


the "wee bit of corruption" has spread to new Zealand:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/26/cl...
Related resources
November 30, 2009 3:06:09 PM

Looks like that big conspiracy that many on the right have been shouting about for the past decade is not so crazy anymore.

Several universities representing several countries all involved with the IPCC. Climatologists falsifying or misleading the data, deleting incriminating information, bullying journalists and editors....all to keep their preconceived ideas (and funding because you know money is involved) intact.

Ever since the idea of Carbon Credits came about, I began to feel something was just not right with the whole thing.
November 30, 2009 6:21:31 PM

Heck, just the idea that a naturally occurring gas, CO2, is a pollutant is enough to make any reasonable person laugh global warming alarmists to scorn. Just think of the logical conclusion. Who, what people, do you want to kill off to reduce the largest living source of CO2, every time these people exhale, on the planet? That is the only logical conclusion.
November 30, 2009 6:23:37 PM

According to the global warming alarmists, reduction of CO2 is REQUIRED to SAVE THE PLANET!!
November 30, 2009 7:55:49 PM

Deforestation, have you heard of it. Fcuking idiot.
November 30, 2009 8:13:45 PM

An acre of land will support greenery to its fullest regardless of the maturity of the greenery.
While this changes some things overall, its not a nothing and everything weve been presented.
Grasses, smaller plants etc, does most of what a mature forest will do for the atmosphere, but, have we seen such comparisons? Are they fairly represented?
Like I said, be it bufflao or cows, theyve been here from the beginning, nothings changed but the way some are trying to make it look
November 30, 2009 8:29:36 PM

strangestranger said:
Deforestation, have you heard of it. Fcuking idiot.



I don't know what your point is. But, taking a guess, if you are saying deforestation is destroying the planet and causing global warming, it's the United States who is at the forefront of managing the forests and the countries that are the poorest do the worst at managing their forests. Yet for some reason, anti-global warming proposals always is aimed at the United States, the best manager and best maintainer of it's forests. So, if your point is deforestation has something to do with global warming, it's poorly made.
November 30, 2009 8:55:56 PM

Are you actually that short sighted?
November 30, 2009 9:12:34 PM

The greater immediate impact of deforestation is the animal impact, not the atmosphere.
Yes, theres also soil impact as well, but things grow the second other things are removed.
Sunlight patterns, water availability etc all change, allowing for a more diverse growth.
Am I saying its right? No? Just pointing out things some may not have in their zealousness of their agenda.
Does it need to be managed? Yes. It doesnt stop the earth/siol from being fertile, it just changes what grows there.
Its always easier to say not in my backyard, when your backyard already is built to your own desires.
Altering the worlds temps is a much harder thing to do.
The mini ice age were just now getting out of, only our theories can explain as to how it all started. Now, were just going to have to believe these same people as to how the Earth is warming and why?
If they cant pinpoint the reasons for a well documented event in mans history, how can they then project the future?
While theres been good things coming out of our exploration of the Earths temps, and its ecosystem, shouting alarm isnt something privy to what we actually know, or what weve actually are just beginning to understand.
No knee jerk reactions, but an honest and open interpretation is whats always required when trying to understand the unknown, and I repeat open
November 30, 2009 9:33:26 PM

I think the world could end if we keep polluting, if the oxygen levels keep dropping and the carbon dioxide keeps going up as well as carbon monoxide, it could kill many lives but that would be in a very very long time from now
November 30, 2009 9:41:14 PM

The world ends when I say it does.
November 30, 2009 9:42:37 PM

Oxygen is replenished by millions of blades of grass as easily as a few giant old growth trees.
In alot of instances, old growth trees arent the best solution for oxygen or carbon elimination.
Theres a balance, and it needs to be managed, as we learn more and more about it, just as we used to stop all man made fires as well as any others, simply to protect old growth etc.
Weve learned since that without those fires, certain parts of the ecosystem doesnt grow, which is vital to old growth.
We used to clear the forest floor, to prevent fires, which introduced other undersirable plants and inhibited old growth. Were learning, and to say the world is ending when we know so little is quite a misjustice, especially to those who are trying to further research, and dont admit we know it all, and everything must change
November 30, 2009 9:46:38 PM

randomizer said:
The world ends when I say it does.

So when does it end? I need to learn :D 
November 30, 2009 9:49:14 PM

randomizer said:
The world ends when I say it does.


The world ends (for me) when I close my eyes for the last time, breathe my last breath, and think my last thought.

Oh yeah, the link I promised. Prof. Aynsley Kellow from the Tasmania Uni...

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/

No transcript, unfortunately.
November 30, 2009 9:54:16 PM

A few trees, wtf are you on about jaydee, we are not talking about a few old trees, we're talking about devastating regions larger than my damn country for crying out loud.

This has nothing to do with the earth's temperatues, it is to do with the rate of change, barring something major occuring naturally which we have missed and are still missing, there is no reason for such rapid changes that have and are being witnessed.

This is not something we can wait to play out here, right or wrong, we need to take action now so at least we can be proven wrong. If people who prefer to wait for proof are listened to, many people may not be around to see who is right or wrong.

Some people's lives are being turned upside down by this stuff.
November 30, 2009 10:09:35 PM

OK, go in and use the UKs military and make them change their laws.
My few trees were only about a described area, as was my millions "only" of grass blades, not trillions, as you described.
So, take over those countries, go ahead, next, the UK will be known as baby killers.
Make their laws your laws.
Im not saying its right whats happening, what I am saying is, nature doesnt end when the trees are cut down, nor does natures benefits. Thats all.
No advocating going on, but trying for a better, deeper understanding, and not the "oh noes. all is lost" attitudes weve been given by the same group of people that simply wont allow for another thought if it doesnt match theirs.
Im betting Ive done more personally to save the trees than you ever have, and no, Im not bragging, just trying to show you that its a concern for me as well.
I helped form a commitee to save the last county park in the county in which I lived, went down to the county commissioners, called in a few people, and we got it done.
The loggers previously had free reign as to cutting any old growth red pine they deemed worthy of bidding on, and land management wasnt eco friendly in our eyes.
If you think nature is so weak, then why does it always come back? Why do we see life in the most hottest of areas? The coldest? The force of nature is greater than the force of man.
I understand peoples concerns, but where are the concerns about the people calling the alarm itself? Wheres their credibility? They cant explain the mini ice age, yet they can explain mans devestation of the entire planets future? They have models of the mini ice age also, and theyre still not sure how and why it happened, so now, youre just going to lend over to these people about the very livelyhood of millions of people in poorer regions?
And how do they propose us to do this?
By spreading our wealth to them?
Teach a man to fish first may be very appropo here wouldnt you agree?
November 30, 2009 10:22:15 PM

+1 the world won't end if the trees get chopped down. Most of our oxygen comes from sea organisms.
November 30, 2009 10:27:02 PM

Tropical rain forests produce about 15% of our oxygen supply (phytoplankton alone accounts for about 50%) and it's long been known that major deforestation levels vs new forestation is at parity for almost 50 years now.

I'm not suggesting we stop efforts to reduce deforestation but we shouldn't make hasty decisions based on poor data (or politicized and falsified data for that matter).
December 1, 2009 2:18:52 AM

strangestranger said:
Are you actually that short sighted?



Who is practicing deforestation the most? Is it the United States. It isn't is it? You don't realize that? According to the U.S. Forest Service, the amount of forest land has remained stable, as in it is not decreasing significantly. See:

http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/briefings-summaries-overvi...


This proves that Deforestation, like you so ignorantly claim, has little to do with the United States. If deforestation has so little to do with the United States, why is it that all the global warming activists want to develop restrictions mainly one country, the United States. It cannot be due to deforestation since the United States is not involved in significant deforestation as you claim. So that must mean deforestation does NOT figure so prominently as you claim and your point is WRONG. Yet, you, who believe is so in tune with the big picture, can't see that and you aren't so smart as you imagine yourself to be.

However, my statement, that your first foul-mouthed response responded to, is much more far-sighted than your ignorant statement about deforestation because global warming activists have ALREADY said that the world's population needed to be reduced. I knew they were going to say that and forecasted it before on this forum on another subject. And sure enough, they said it. Andrew Revkin, a New York Times reporter, and other global warming activists, are proposing laws to limit family size. But what if it is as the global warming activists believe that that isn't enough and there are still too many people. It isn't a very far leap to say that the number of people need to be reduced.

I don't know why I'm explaining this to you, you who has such far-sighted vision should be able to see this without my telling you this. But I'll continue and maybe your far-sighted vision will start working again.

Anyway, what if the earth keeps warming like the global warming activists believe it is, even when it isn't, after they have tried all the things they want to try all the prescriptions as described in the Kyoto Protocol, having destroyed the worlds economy, they can easily say that in order to save the planet, which is what they believe, that they can save the planet, that the population must be thinned to save the earth and humanity. People have killed for less. What could be more important than saving the planet? It's a religion to them, and apparently to you too. Their religion dictates that they believe that they can save a planet, regardless of the facts that say that it doesn't need to be saving. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung all did it for less. So, I have the farsighted vision based on logical conclusion, that you cannot see apparently.

December 1, 2009 9:13:01 AM

Tropical rainforsests are not being replanted or regrowing as quickly as they are being cut down last time I checked.

Also, redraider, where do you think the demand for all this wood is? In the poor countries that do the logging or us, the rich countries who want fancy wood for items?

I don't care if it only produced 1% of the earth's oxygen, it is still to important to miss, the earth needs balancing. Also, considering how much of the rain forests have been cut down, what has replaced the oxygen supply that they previously put out, it probably was double what it was at one point so who has picked up the slack?

Also, seeing as trees do lock away co2 and clearing them and the methods of doing so release the carbon right back into the atmophere with no ability to recapture it.

Wood is a natural resource, however everything needs to be done in moderation and sustainable actions need enforcing, we the so called developed world pull the strings in almost all polluting activities and can reduce them at will, costly but still possible. So that just means there really is not the will to do so.

I err on the side of caution on these matters only because people usually show bias in the results and I will always side with the doom and gloom rather than the rose tinted glasses as the world rarely exists in the latter and almost certainly exists in the former.
December 1, 2009 1:56:16 PM

strangestranger said:
Tropical rainforsests are not being replanted or regrowing as quickly as they are being cut down last time I checked.

Also, redraider, where do you think the demand for all this wood is? In the poor countries that do the logging or us, the rich countries who want fancy wood for items?


I disagree that the demand in the U.S. is the primary cause of deforestation. The primary cause of deforestation is the local people clearing land for grazing and farming.

In any case, this has nothing to do with the theory of global warming being debunked by these emails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit. How much CO2 is in the air is irrelevant because the computer models that were being used that showed CO2 as the cause of global warming at these universities promoting global warming have now been shown to be wrong. There is no global warming. The data that they were using is cooked to show there is when there isn't. The data has been corrupted by these "scientists" so they can continue to claim that man-induced/produced CO2 is destroying the planet by causing a greenhouse effect. So CO2 is completely irrelevant.
December 1, 2009 2:15:07 PM

I have got some news for all you tree huggers. We are not destroying the Earth. If ANYTHING we will destroy our selves but in time the earth WILL heal and there will be life on it, just not human life.

As for climate change. It is cyclical. The highest recorded CO2 levels happened MILLIONS of years before we were even on this planet, So I guess cool T-rex was cruising in his SUV with 22' wheels spewing out CO2?

One major volcanic eruption (never mind an interstellar collision) will spew more sulfur, CO2 and other far worse particles into the atmosphere then 1000 years of EVERYONE driving a non cat SUV every second of the day... Are we going to plug the volcanoes next?

We could not destroy the Earth if we tried. If we blew up every nuke and killed all human life the Earth would still be here and given time would heal, absorb the radiation, CO2 etc. and life would return or come out of hiding.



Edit: And I also hope I am still around in 60 years to see the return of the cold cycle to this planet! I hope Al Gore is alive as well.

Silly Humans, when are you going to realize you are NOT the end all be all of the universe, your lives are an insignificant little dot of sand on a beach that no would would miss if it were gone.
December 1, 2009 3:25:34 PM

Bleet said:
We could not destroy the Earth if we tried. If we blew up every nuke and killed all human life the Earth would still be here and given time would heal, absorb the radiation, CO2 etc. and life would return or come out of hiding.


Exactly right Bleet. The same people who believe we can destroy the earth believe in evolution and under the theory of evolution, we are just another animal on the planet. In fact, the global warmers ought to be glad if we got wiped off of the planet because according to them, we are the worst and most damaging animal on the planet. They want it both ways. They lament so woefully that people will be killed like people have value, then they turn around and say human beings are just aweful, and evil and are destroying the earth. They are not far from believing what Mr. Smith said in The Matrix that humanity is a virus to this planet and needs to be expunged. They want it both ways but you can't have it both ways. Either human beings are worth saving, or they are the worst creature on the earth. Which is it?
December 1, 2009 3:32:49 PM

Hold up a moment...did you just allude to the notion that evolution isn't a valid scientific theory?
December 1, 2009 3:44:13 PM

TheViper said:
Hold up a moment...did you just allude to the notion that evolution isn't a valid scientific theory?


It's a valid theory, but it's only a theory, not fact. Not all theories are true.
December 1, 2009 3:48:31 PM

Gravity is also a theory. The only reason either are theories and not laws are because we are still learning about them so a finalized law cannot yet be determined.

Evolution itself is a scientific fact. If you mean Darwanism, then you have all rights to be skeptical.
December 1, 2009 3:54:10 PM

I believe in micro-evolution, between species, but not macro-evolution. It's macro evolution that is the most dangerous. That is the evolution that says we are all merely a different kind of animal and nothing special. That is the kind of evolution that led to the Holocaust in Germany and the mass executions by Marxists in the communist/socialist countries.
December 1, 2009 3:56:20 PM

And macro-evolution is the evolution that allows radical environmentalists, those who believe in global warming, a subset of environmentalism, to say save the planet at all costs.
December 1, 2009 4:12:53 PM

When we start deciding who lives and who dies it becomes a slippery slope.
Chinas policies are well known, who can have what kind of babies, and is designed and enforced by law.
Theres arguments for the usage of DDT, as malaria has taken more lives without DDT than what we truly know of the impact on its usage.
It reminds me of the spinache debacle. Spinache was considered to have tons of iron in it, but, low and behold, years later, when itwas retested for content, the original numbers were off by 1 decimal point, and spinache actually only has 1/10 of what wed previously thought, but again, everyone jumped on the wagon and promoted spinache.

Now that was just a digestable vegatable, now imagine the fate of millions of peoples, trillions of dollars etc. Im all for landing on the side of caution, but to invest so severly into it is foolhardy as well.
If not for our finite oil reserves, this wouldnt be a concern, as well as population growth and the expanding usage of our finite resources. This is whats driving these "concerns", and making oil prohibitively expensive wont drive the markets, and the switchover is no wheres in sight, so available alternatives are too varied per region etc, and here again, we enter into world greed.
The worlds movers and shakers want in on the next saviour , as they can keep their positions , but again, none has surfaced, but they have managed to put together in one place, one thing, a power ability to control what we have left. So, its in their best interests this too plays out, and global warming becomes something more than it is.

My concerns are this: All studies need to be open sourced from the begining, something which hasnt been done with global warming, its being done with my money, so yes, I have that right.
All studies pro or con, one way or the other needs further clarification, to its end if you will, for fact finding, as each pro or con does contribute to the overall end facts, which then can be applied to better solutions.
Grasping a "we need to do this right now, if its already not too late" has a certain window, which if we take this route, will soon play itself out, and since its such a drastic approach, needs to be held with no amount a derivation at all, meaning, if they say we have to do this, and do it now, then itd better be as they say, no ifs or ands, but right on their marks, and if found wrong, charges can/will applyLike a mayor of a city, making decisions for its people, he/she is liable for his/her decision making, and so too also this applies.
If we followed these patterns, wed see an open approach, containing much more usable data, with more open minds coming to a wider and more approachable solution, with responsibility thrown in for its proposed importance, as welll as using the peoples resources, changing them however, and making the makers of these policies sharper in their conclusions
December 1, 2009 4:36:29 PM

Global warming......

Global cooling.....

Humanities ability to change the natural cycles that happen to a rock orbiting just the right distance, speed and tilt from a Huge, trillions of years lasting, thermonuclear reaction (the sun) in the void of space.....

Are you freaking serious?

One burp from our magnetic field and we are all irradiated...

One belch from the Sun we are all fried...

A sun anomaly that reduces its thermal output by a small percentage we all freeze...

Hit by a large meteor, we burn then freeze...

Why are we even worried about global warming.....
December 1, 2009 5:04:07 PM

The earths been pretty lucky, being its only 4+ billions of years old
December 1, 2009 5:16:24 PM

redraider89 said:
This proves that Deforestation, like you so ignorantly claim, has little to do with the United States. If deforestation has so little to do with the United States, why is it that all the global warming activists want to develop restrictions mainly one country, the United States. It cannot be due to deforestation since the United States is not involved in significant deforestation as you claim.


Because most of the resources are extracted from 3rd world countries. Most of the forests in the US are probably intact because they could still get wood cheaper on other poorer countries. Also why do you think Alaskan Oil is only starting to be tapped now? It's a logical step for any nation, consume others before using your own!

Also the US government is one of the governments that they could talk to, let them try to pull these stunts on other countries and they could be shot or imprisoned.

redraider89 said:
What could be more important than saving the planet? It's a religion to them, and apparently to you too. Their religion dictates that they believe that they can save a planet, regardless of the facts that say that it doesn't need to be saving. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung all did it for less. So, I have the farsighted vision based on logical conclusion, that you cannot see apparently.


Every topic has fanatics, and obviously your overwhelming hatred for these "nature hippies" makes you no different.

strangestranger said:
Also, redraider, where do you think the demand for all this wood is? In the poor countries that do the logging or us, the rich countries who want fancy wood for items?


^+1

redraider89 said:
The primary cause of deforestation is the local people clearing land for grazing and farming.


and then supplying raw materials to wealthier nations!


redraider89 said:
Exactly right Bleet. The same people who believe we can destroy the earth believe in evolution and under the theory of evolution, we are just another animal on the planet. In fact, the global warmers ought to be glad if we got wiped off of the planet because according to them, we are the worst and most damaging animal on the planet. They want it both ways. They lament so woefully that people will be killed like people have value, then they turn around and say human beings are just aweful, and evil and are destroying the earth. They are not far from believing what Mr. Smith said in The Matrix that humanity is a virus to this planet and needs to be expunged. They want it both ways but you can't have it both ways. Either human beings are worth saving, or they are the worst creature on the earth. Which is it?


Human beings are the worst creature on the earth, as the earth could go on without humans. But as a human, aren't you going to save your own ass?

December 1, 2009 5:18:52 PM

I'm actually much more concerned about the weakening of the magnetic poles of the earth, as it is one thing we could do nothing to prevent.

This article sums up the other cosmic events that could kill us all long before "waterworld," 5 Cosmic Events That Could Kill You Before Lunch.
December 1, 2009 5:44:19 PM

Arent these the same bleeding hearts that dont want to show the Orca as it is, like eating a seal?
Or a dog killing cats?
Or a cat killing a Canary?
All creatures kill or live off of dead creatures.
Are we so different?
When the buffalo herds trampled everything in sight, ruined the grasses and created dirt storms, should they too be held for these atrosities?
Funny, like admitting man is evil is something new.
How long did it take scientists to figure that one out?
The worlds been here 4 billion years, and yes, theres been collisions, theres been temp differences etc, and whats it caused?
Life on earth. A perfect solution so balanced a 1 nm cpu is to be laughed at.
How do we even know if the earth needs to be within its eact location in the milky way galaxy, and the milky way needing to be placed exactly within its location of the universe itself for life to exist on earth?
We dont, but its possible, being as the balance we now see is so uncomprehendible as it currently is.
Lets open it up all the way, not just partially. What if were struck by Gamma rays from a far distant galaxy?
Yes, man is evil, weve known that since Adam, however you want to call the first man.
It isnt for evil that we exist, is it?
December 1, 2009 8:16:42 PM

I would like to point out that again, this is not about a change in temperature, it is the rate of change.

AFAIK, barring a freak natural accident, there has never been a change in temperature like has been seen now. I believe ice records prove such as do tree rings.
December 1, 2009 8:20:46 PM

strangestranger said:
I would like to point out that again, this is not about a change in temperature, it is the rate of change.

AFAIK, barring a freak natural accident, there has never been a change in temperature like has been seen now. I believe ice records prove such as do tree rings.

LOL, you might want to go read the hacked emails. They stopped accepting tree ring data because it stopped supporting temperature increases since 1950 and they couldn't explain why.
December 1, 2009 11:22:15 PM

i would be perfectly happy for humans to be wiped of the face of the planet.

i would not be happy to know we would destroy our atmosphere and the prospects of all life in our departure.

there are millions of planets out there that may have one point sustained life(mars for instance). eventually though, the requirements for life to exist are thrown out of balance by nature and the planet once again becomes unliveable.

do we as humans really need to continue contributing to this? our planet has millions of years left. but at the rate we are dumping stuff into the soil/sea/atmosphere, it onyl has a few thousand.

yes, 'global warming' is more than likely just another cycle in our planets life. but all of you pretending out planet is indestructable are just in denial.
humans, by evolutionary law should not still be here. but we're to smart, to stubborn and too selfish to go away.


December 2, 2009 1:59:41 AM

But of course were still here, were the ones who thought up evolution werent we?
But as everything "human" goes, defined by some. all our inventions become like us, Frankenstein monsters that kills its creator.
So easy to figure out, but alas, Im unamused, seen it all before.
Why scientists are acting obtuse as to the human element is beyond me, maybe its the look of a young child, people helping others without asking for anything back, who knows?
Sure, helping has to end, the children must die, what a wonderful life those scientists have planned for us. Maybe its them who are the problem? Other opinions need not apply......
December 2, 2009 9:49:03 AM

welshmousepk said:
humans, by evolutionary law should not still be here.


I think we were just impressively lucky. On what I've watched about the creation of Earth, it is amazing that if even one thing had gone wrong before, Earth would be unlivable.
December 2, 2009 10:30:55 AM

Oh, and I have to add the moon and its exact placement and composition as well.
So, the moon, its composition, the earth its composition, all placed exactly the right distance from our sun, again, the exact needed size and age, with all the other planets effecting the earth moon and sun concurrently as well, all in balance for 4+ billion years, yea, luck, thats it
December 2, 2009 10:48:39 AM

Yes, chance, laws of probability.

Also, the earth will not support life forever, this is just a mere snapshot as jaydeee points out, allowed by the moon.

It is essential for all stability and seeing as it is moving away slowsly things will change slowly for the worse. The moon is theorised to have been alot closer when the earth was first formed and has been slowly moving away from us ever since IIRC.

However, I think jaydee was wrongly asserting that the earth has been balanced for it's entire existence, that is false, it has only been balanced and stable enough for life for a short period of time and will likely end this time long before the sun stops providing enough light and heat.

At least for life such as ourselves, basic life has been around much longer and will survive much longer as they are more adaptable and less reliant on the environment.
December 2, 2009 12:33:16 PM

strangestranger said:
Yes, chance, laws of probability.

Also, the earth will not support life forever, this is just a mere snapshot as jaydeee points out, allowed by the moon.

It is essential for all stability and seeing as it is moving away slowsly things will change slowly for the worse. The moon is theorised to have been alot closer when the earth was first formed and has been slowly moving away from us ever since IIRC.

However, I think jaydee was wrongly asserting that the earth has been balanced for it's entire existence, that is false, it has only been balanced and stable enough for life for a short period of time and will likely end this time long before the sun stops providing enough light and heat.

At least for life such as ourselves, basic life has been around much longer and will survive much longer as they are more adaptable and less reliant on the environment.


Basic life is less reliant on the Environment? Give me some of what you are smoking.

Is global warming causing the moon to move away?

We are causing the moon to go away?

This all totally agrees with my statement that global warming is the least of our worries and our time here could be ended at any second.

Why do you think the moon is responsible for our existence? If anything Jupiter and its meteor sucking gravity along with the largest thing in our solar system, Jupiter's Magnetosphere are the reason we have not been pounded or irradiated into nothingness...
December 2, 2009 12:59:42 PM

Everything thats occured from the begining is the reason why were here is what Im pointing out.
Taking the theorists position, it was the combination of all this for life to occur at all.
There couldnt have been life before the earth cooled etc, or when the sun was too bright, or the moon was too close etc etc. Or the meteorites etc, as all these things had to happen in a small time frame for life to have sprung, and thats how "lucky" weve been
December 2, 2009 2:10:10 PM

Basic life such as bacteria can adapt itself to whatever circumstances it finds itself in, humans can't. over time we have spread to other parts of this globe but it doesn't take much to change that unlike with bacteria which will survive.

The moon is well known to provide a stabilising force as well as responsible for the tides and other things. It is very important.
December 2, 2009 2:50:05 PM

strangestranger said:
Basic life such as bacteria can adapt itself to whatever circumstances it finds itself in, humans can't. over time we have spread to other parts of this globe but it doesn't take much to change that unlike with bacteria which will survive.

The moon is well known to provide a stabilising force as well as responsible for the tides and other things. It is very important.


Why is there no life on the moon if "basic life" is not reliant on the environment?

We can not adapt? We adapt faster then anything ever through technology. We have eradicated several means for the natural checks and balances the world has thrown at us hence our population explosion via modern medicine. I think you under estimate the resiliency of Humans.

We "adapted" to living in outer space for some periods of time.

We will shortly begin the first phase of colonizing other celestial bodies.

That is overcoming the limitations of this planet and its environment completely not merely adapting to it and what is throws at you.


December 2, 2009 3:17:30 PM

Who says there is no life on the moon?

Humans adapt but they can only adapt so much and nowhere near as much as "simpler" lifeforms.
December 2, 2009 4:03:34 PM

Simpler lifeforms have to be near their food, they cant grow their own, nor migate distances to it, especially without higher lifeforms to make even this possible.
So no, I dont believe in the lower only likeform thing, not at the begining nor now, as lower lifeforms are too constrained within their enviroment to actually exist by themselves.
Enviroments change, and its been recorded many a time, as we "evil" humans made this happened, without our knowledge at the time, but even so, by some writers of history, we are the evil ones. Weve unknowingly brought in species that caused other species extinction, as we changed the enviroment, just by adding a new creature.
How did man survive the ice age? He changed his enviroment close to him, somehow found nourishment. This wasnt chance here, this "luck" everyone points towards.
When the vents move at the bottom of the ocean, or the ice thaws allowing for too much sunlight beneath the ice in Antartica, those lower lifeforms will die. Guess theyll be just outta luck
!