Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Tue Mar 02, 2021 5:30 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 876 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 36  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
And of course we could take it that extra step and extrapolate that those with money will have access to seed banks in the event of a collapse of the world food supply, and those without will not.

Slight variation on a theme.
I'm curious about peoples thoughts. If we acknowledge our tendencies toward destroying the habitat that we need to survive, would cloning be a viable alternative food source? And what do you think the implications are associated with that given that it would be a corporately owned, patented technology?

_________________
"Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read and what we must believe?" T.J.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:17 pm
Posts: 2386
Location: Kapuskasing, Ontario
one of the uglies wrote:
And of course we could take it that extra step and extrapolate that those with money will have access to seed banks in the event of a collapse of the world food supply, and those without will not.

Slight variation on a theme.
I'm curious about peoples thoughts. If we acknowledge our tendencies toward destroying the habitat that we need to survive, would cloning be a viable alternative food source? And what do you think the implications are associated with that given that it would be a corporately owned, patented technology?

WHOA!!! Did I read you wrong, or did you just bring up the concept of cloning cannibalism??????

_________________
For my clinically insane music
http://routenote.com/album/FOWL
http://www.myspace.com/fowlmusic
http://www.last.fm/music/fowl
http://www.deezer.com/en/#music/fowl
Your mental health requires buying my cd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
FOWL wrote:
one of the uglies wrote:
And of course we could take it that extra step and extrapolate that those with money will have access to seed banks in the event of a collapse of the world food supply, and those without will not.

Slight variation on a theme.
I'm curious about peoples thoughts. If we acknowledge our tendencies toward destroying the habitat that we need to survive, would cloning be a viable alternative food source? And what do you think the implications are associated with that given that it would be a corporately owned, patented technology?

WHOA!!! Did I read you wrong, or did you just bring up the concept of cloning cannibalism??????

Um I wasn't thinking about cannibalism, I was thinking fish, sheep, cattle etc.... Too funny though :mrgreen:

_________________
"Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read and what we must believe?" T.J.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:17 pm
Posts: 2386
Location: Kapuskasing, Ontario
one of the uglies wrote:
FOWL wrote:
one of the uglies wrote:
And of course we could take it that extra step and extrapolate that those with money will have access to seed banks in the event of a collapse of the world food supply, and those without will not.

Slight variation on a theme.
I'm curious about peoples thoughts. If we acknowledge our tendencies toward destroying the habitat that we need to survive, would cloning be a viable alternative food source? And what do you think the implications are associated with that given that it would be a corporately owned, patented technology?

WHOA!!! Did I read you wrong, or did you just bring up the concept of cloning cannibalism??????

Um I wasn't thinking about cannibalism, I was thinking fish, sheep, cattle etc.... Too funny though :mrgreen:

Hahahha ya! I was a little freaked out there! Well my question would be, what is the advantage of cloning animals over letting them mate naturally (or semi naturally by proxy farmer hand jobs and turkey basters)?

_________________
For my clinically insane music
http://routenote.com/album/FOWL
http://www.myspace.com/fowlmusic
http://www.last.fm/music/fowl
http://www.deezer.com/en/#music/fowl
Your mental health requires buying my cd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:50 am
Posts: 6036
Location: Málaga, Spain
FOWL wrote:
Gay weed!
Considering you are from the UK, I thought this study was interesting, thought you'd benefit from reading it maybe!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... sease.html



that study is about as credible as Hitler :mrgreen: I can show you countless studies to the contrary and incidentally, skunk is only one type of cannabis, there are over 200 varieties. It's just convenient for the media to focus on skunk because of the negative connotations of the name. It's neither the strongest, nor the most commonly smoked weed but it still makes good headlines.

There is no statistical link between cannabis and mental illness. The only question they asked them about cannabis was, have you smoked cannabis? and if the respondent replied yes, then they attributed the mental illness to cannabis use. If you actually look at many of the individual cases where cannabis has been linked to mental illness. You will find that there is not a shred of evidence to link it. On the contrary, many people find cannabis to be a far better and toxin-free anti-depressant. But that doesn't make good headlines.

http://www.eldoradocountyaamc.com/condtreated.htm
• Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
• Anxiety Disorders
• Autism
• Aversive Memories
• Can Cannabis Help Multiple Sclerosis?
• Can Cannabis Kill You?
• Cancer cachexia and cannabinoids
• Cannabidiol anti-inflammatory activity
• Cannabinoids and Memory
• Cannabinoids in clinical practice
• Cannabinoids treat skin cancer
• Cannabis and Depression
• Cannabis and Migraine
• Cannabis and Neuroprotection
• Cannabis and Treatment of Chemo Related Nausea
• Chronic Cannabis Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program
• Chronic Pain
• Control of the cell survival/death decision by cannabinoids
• delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol in clinical oncology
• Diabetes
• For the Sake of the Children
• Hepatitis C
• Lymphoma may be slowed by cannabis
• Musculoskeletal Disorders
• Neuroprotection by Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol
• Pancreatitis
• Rheumatoid Arthritis(Letter to physician - 30K .pdf file)
• Sickle Cell Disease and Cannabis
• Sleep Apnea
• Smokeless Medicine
• Tourette-Syndrome
http://www.phoenixtears.ca/

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Solipsism Spotify


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
FOWL wrote:
Hahahha ya! I was a little freaked out there! Well my question would be, what is the advantage of cloning animals over letting them mate naturally (or semi naturally by proxy farmer hand jobs and turkey basters)?

The question is based on the potential unsuitability for continuing to raise livestock or hunt gather foodstuff in conventional methods, due to space restrictions and destruction of natural habitat caused by unchecked population growth. For instance, if we were to reach a saturation point at which time the earths seas could no longer provide enough fish for the human population due to pollution, or sheer numbers of humans. In that situation would cloning and various genetic manipulations be a viable alternative?
Also the reason I mention cloning has more to do with speed and patenting. Basically applying the same model we have already seen with seed production, to the area of other foodstuffs (BTW, for those not familiar with horticultural terminology, cloning is also the term used for taking a cutting of a plant and then growing a genetically identical second plant.)
It was primarily a corporate/government control issue, a situation in which corporate interests were served by eliminating the natural food supply as has been to a degree accomplished with terminator seeds. Is it possible that the same ideas are being worked on for animal populations as they have been for vegetables. I recall somewhere seeing something about this applied to pest control, but then, I can't remember off hand if it was sci-fi or applied science.

On a far more whimsical note, who gets to determine what the definition of pest is? :twisted:

_________________
"Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read and what we must believe?" T.J.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:17 pm
Posts: 2386
Location: Kapuskasing, Ontario
one of the uglies wrote:
FOWL wrote:
Hahahha ya! I was a little freaked out there! Well my question would be, what is the advantage of cloning animals over letting them mate naturally (or semi naturally by proxy farmer hand jobs and turkey basters)?

The question is based on the potential unsuitability for continuing to raise livestock or hunt gather foodstuff in conventional methods, due to space restrictions and destruction of natural habitat caused by unchecked population growth. For instance, if we were to reach a saturation point at which time the earths seas could no longer provide enough fish for the human population due to pollution, or sheer numbers of humans. In that situation would cloning and various genetic manipulations be a viable alternative?
Also the reason I mention cloning has more to do with speed and patenting. Basically applying the same model we have already seen with seed production, to the area of other foodstuffs (BTW, for those not familiar with horticultural terminology, cloning is also the term used for taking a cutting of a plant and then growing a genetically identical second plant.)
It was primarily a corporate/government control issue, a situation in which corporate interests were served by eliminating the natural food supply as has been to a degree accomplished with terminator seeds. Is it possible that the same ideas are being worked on for animal populations as they have been for vegetables. I recall somewhere seeing something about this applied to pest control, but then, I can't remember off hand if it was sci-fi or applied science.

On a far more whimsical note, who gets to determine what the definition of pest is? :twisted:

I see, you are bringing it up as a control mechanism over animal production, and not as a real solution to food crises (one major food crises, especially for the third world, could be solved by the insanity of using framland to grow ethanol fuel, which has doubled food prices, and exacerbated famine around the world.) Because I really fail to see how cloned animals would take up less space than regular kinds.

_________________
For my clinically insane music
http://routenote.com/album/FOWL
http://www.myspace.com/fowlmusic
http://www.last.fm/music/fowl
http://www.deezer.com/en/#music/fowl
Your mental health requires buying my cd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:17 pm
Posts: 2386
Location: Kapuskasing, Ontario
TheCentralScrutinizer wrote:
FOWL wrote:
Gay weed!
Considering you are from the UK, I thought this study was interesting, thought you'd benefit from reading it maybe!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... sease.html



that study is about as credible as Hitler :mrgreen: I can show you countless studies to the contrary and incidentally, skunk is only one type of cannabis, there are over 200 varieties. It's just convenient for the media to focus on skunk because of the negative connotations of the name. It's neither the strongest, nor the most commonly smoked weed but it still makes good headlines.

There is no statistical link between cannabis and mental illness. The only question they asked them about cannabis was, have you smoked cannabis? and if the respondent replied yes, then they attributed the mental illness to cannabis use. If you actually look at many of the individual cases where cannabis has been linked to mental illness. You will find that there is not a shred of evidence to link it. On the contrary, many people find cannabis to be a far better and toxin-free anti-depressant. But that doesn't make good headlines.

http://www.eldoradocountyaamc.com/condtreated.htm
• Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
• Anxiety Disorders
• Autism
• Aversive Memories
• Can Cannabis Help Multiple Sclerosis?
• Can Cannabis Kill You?
• Cancer cachexia and cannabinoids
• Cannabidiol anti-inflammatory activity
• Cannabinoids and Memory
• Cannabinoids in clinical practice
• Cannabinoids treat skin cancer
• Cannabis and Depression
• Cannabis and Migraine
• Cannabis and Neuroprotection
• Cannabis and Treatment of Chemo Related Nausea
• Chronic Cannabis Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program
• Chronic Pain
• Control of the cell survival/death decision by cannabinoids
• delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol in clinical oncology
• Diabetes
• For the Sake of the Children
• Hepatitis C
• Lymphoma may be slowed by cannabis
• Musculoskeletal Disorders
• Neuroprotection by Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol
• Pancreatitis
• Rheumatoid Arthritis(Letter to physician - 30K .pdf file)
• Sickle Cell Disease and Cannabis
• Sleep Apnea
• Smokeless Medicine
• Tourette-Syndrome
http://www.phoenixtears.ca/

I agree the study cannot prove that any mental illness is related to marijuana, nor can any study prove such a link. I thought it was interesting that a specific strain might be linked to higher rates. I don't know anything about skunk at any rate. Besides methods of growing weed affect it's potency more than the genetics. At any rate, my thoughts on smoking weed are pretty complex. I agree it can help people with a range of illnesses, but it's nature is erratic, and it's effects on a user can change over time. It is interesting that they keep linking mental illness to weed, in my experience most people with mental illness I know did smoke frequently. However the question is, do people predisposed to mental illness gravitate towards it because it helps smooth their mood, or can it actually trigger psychotic episodes? My belief is it is both. Just like an anti-depressent (which is classed as a halucinatory drug) can control ones mood, with many people one day they go on a bad trip and chop their kids up into little pieces. Obviously marijuana is not so intense or dangerous a drug, but I think you'll get my point. This type of chemical is an extremely complicated thing which can effect different people in completely opposite manners, as well as the same person different ways at different time. Plus you are releasing carbon dioxide into the air when you smoke! :mrgreen:

_________________
For my clinically insane music
http://routenote.com/album/FOWL
http://www.myspace.com/fowlmusic
http://www.last.fm/music/fowl
http://www.deezer.com/en/#music/fowl
Your mental health requires buying my cd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:50 am
Posts: 6036
Location: Málaga, Spain
FOWL wrote:
TheCentralScrutinizer wrote:
FOWL wrote:
Gay weed!
Considering you are from the UK, I thought this study was interesting, thought you'd benefit from reading it maybe!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... sease.html



that study is about as credible as Hitler :mrgreen: I can show you countless studies to the contrary and incidentally, skunk is only one type of cannabis, there are over 200 varieties. It's just convenient for the media to focus on skunk because of the negative connotations of the name. It's neither the strongest, nor the most commonly smoked weed but it still makes good headlines.

There is no statistical link between cannabis and mental illness. The only question they asked them about cannabis was, have you smoked cannabis? and if the respondent replied yes, then they attributed the mental illness to cannabis use. If you actually look at many of the individual cases where cannabis has been linked to mental illness. You will find that there is not a shred of evidence to link it. On the contrary, many people find cannabis to be a far better and toxin-free anti-depressant. But that doesn't make good headlines.

http://www.eldoradocountyaamc.com/condtreated.htm
• Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
• Anxiety Disorders
• Autism
• Aversive Memories
• Can Cannabis Help Multiple Sclerosis?
• Can Cannabis Kill You?
• Cancer cachexia and cannabinoids
• Cannabidiol anti-inflammatory activity
• Cannabinoids and Memory
• Cannabinoids in clinical practice
• Cannabinoids treat skin cancer
• Cannabis and Depression
• Cannabis and Migraine
• Cannabis and Neuroprotection
• Cannabis and Treatment of Chemo Related Nausea
• Chronic Cannabis Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program
• Chronic Pain
• Control of the cell survival/death decision by cannabinoids
• delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol in clinical oncology
• Diabetes
• For the Sake of the Children
• Hepatitis C
• Lymphoma may be slowed by cannabis
• Musculoskeletal Disorders
• Neuroprotection by Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol
• Pancreatitis
• Rheumatoid Arthritis(Letter to physician - 30K .pdf file)
• Sickle Cell Disease and Cannabis
• Sleep Apnea
• Smokeless Medicine
• Tourette-Syndrome
http://www.phoenixtears.ca/

I agree the study cannot prove that any mental illness is related to marijuana, nor can any study prove such a link. I thought it was interesting that a specific strain might be linked to higher rates. I don't know anything about skunk at any rate. Besides methods of growing weed affect it's potency more than the genetics. At any rate, my thoughts on smoking weed are pretty complex. I agree it can help people with a range of illnesses, but it's nature is erratic, and it's effects on a user can change over time. It is interesting that they keep linking mental illness to weed, in my experience most people with mental illness I know did smoke frequently. However the question is, do people predisposed to mental illness gravitate towards it because it helps smooth their mood, or can it actually trigger psychotic episodes? My belief is it is both. Just like an anti-depressent (which is classed as a halucinatory drug) can control ones mood, with many people one day they go on a bad trip and chop their kids up into little pieces. Obviously marijuana is not so intense or dangerous a drug, but I think you'll get my point. This type of chemical is an extremely complicated thing which can effect different people in completely opposite manners, as well as the same person different ways at different time. Plus you are releasing carbon dioxide into the air when you smoke! :mrgreen:


Regarding strength, both method of growing and genetics are vitally important to strength. The reason they linked a specific strain in the UK is simply because British voters aren't as aware of Cannabis as Canadian voters are and it's easy for politicians in the UK to label all cannabis as Skunk and get away with it.

I believe that it's certainly not suitable for everyone, nothing is and I believe that some people shouldn't smoke it because of the effect it has on them. However just because an extremely small proportion of people develop mild, unwanted side effects such as temporary mental illness. It doesn't mean there should be a blanket ban and the vast majority of people who obviously benefit from it should lose out as a result.

The plants thrive on carbon dioxide, that's why it's good to talk :mrgreen:

iincidentally i don't believe cannabis causes mental illness, though it may exacerbate already existing issues.

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Solipsism Spotify


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:17 pm
Posts: 2386
Location: Kapuskasing, Ontario
No I agree with you there, even the article states it may "exacerbate existing illness" or trigger a latent disease. But of course either way I am for freedom, and criminalising a plant is complete lunacy. However I'm not a teenager anymore and have seen enough to say marijuana is neither good nor bad wholly. There are positive and negative elements to it's use. Not trying to demonise anyone who may or may not use it which I am typing this message to right now, just interesting to discuss such a complex issue.

_________________
For my clinically insane music
http://routenote.com/album/FOWL
http://www.myspace.com/fowlmusic
http://www.last.fm/music/fowl
http://www.deezer.com/en/#music/fowl
Your mental health requires buying my cd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
FOWL wrote:
one of the uglies wrote:
FOWL wrote:
Hahahha ya! I was a little freaked out there! Well my question would be, what is the advantage of cloning animals over letting them mate naturally (or semi naturally by proxy farmer hand jobs and turkey basters)?

The question is based on the potential unsuitability for continuing to raise livestock or hunt gather foodstuff in conventional methods, due to space restrictions and destruction of natural habitat caused by unchecked population growth. For instance, if we were to reach a saturation point at which time the earths seas could no longer provide enough fish for the human population due to pollution, or sheer numbers of humans. In that situation would cloning and various genetic manipulations be a viable alternative?
Also the reason I mention cloning has more to do with speed and patenting. Basically applying the same model we have already seen with seed production, to the area of other foodstuffs (BTW, for those not familiar with horticultural terminology, cloning is also the term used for taking a cutting of a plant and then growing a genetically identical second plant.)
It was primarily a corporate/government control issue, a situation in which corporate interests were served by eliminating the natural food supply as has been to a degree accomplished with terminator seeds. Is it possible that the same ideas are being worked on for animal populations as they have been for vegetables. I recall somewhere seeing something about this applied to pest control, but then, I can't remember off hand if it was sci-fi or applied science.

On a far more whimsical note, who gets to determine what the definition of pest is? :twisted:

I see, you are bringing it up as a control mechanism over animal production, and not as a real solution to food crises (one major food crises, especially for the third world, could be solved by the insanity of using framland to grow ethanol fuel, which has doubled food prices, and exacerbated famine around the world.) Because I really fail to see how cloned animals would take up less space than regular kinds.

I'll try again, I must have hit the wrong button this morning. I thought I had posted, but it didn't show up.

The idea was that by way of bioengineering them differently we could make them take up less space, similar to the way we might breed a dog to be smaller for people who live in apartments. The difference being that rather than doing it through selective breeding, do it all in the laboratory, slap a label on it and ship it off to market.

I was actually trying to think about the issue in two ways, one positive(secured food supply in the event of a disaster,) one negative(corporate control over the food supply.)

_________________
"Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read and what we must believe?" T.J.


Last edited by one of the uglies on Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2958
Location: Sydney, OZ
i believe that global warming is happening, and i believe it's primarily caused by human activity. left to itself nature would cope with regular changes in climate, but it's behind the eight ball when we continue to pump pollution into the atmosphere, oceans, rivers etc. Not only that, but we (in particular indonesia, south america, australia, etc etc) continue to clear land of natural vegetation which places ecosystems under incredible pressure.

if the world doesn't start reducing it's carbon emissions soon we're fucked...well, maybe not us, but our kids and their kids will be!

the overwhelming scientific opinion (not funded by big business) supports this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 4859
I think you need to do more research on the subject. I agree water pollution is a problem as well as certain air pollution, but carbon emissions NO. Actually meteorologist and scientist's say that sun spot activity and ocean temp,along with volcanic activity impact global weather the most. The last ten years the globe is cooling and is going to cool about a degree more in 50 years. Cooling a degree will cause more harm to the globe than warming, check it out. Also through the ages vast forest fires left to burn have put out MORE carbon by a factor of over 100 times the amount that factories have in the last 100 years combined !!! So quit listening to that fat bastard Al Gore and do more research. Also Big business is what is fueling the climate hoax !!!!!

_________________
"I'm interested in the capitalistic way of life, and the reason I like it better than anything else I've seen so far is because competition produces results."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:17 pm
Posts: 2386
Location: Kapuskasing, Ontario
Uncle Bernie wrote:
i believe that global warming is happening, and i believe it's primarily caused by human activity. left to itself nature would cope with regular changes in climate, but it's behind the eight ball when we continue to pump pollution into the atmosphere, oceans, rivers etc. Not only that, but we (in particular indonesia, south america, australia, etc etc) continue to clear land of natural vegetation which places ecosystems under incredible pressure.

if the world doesn't start reducing it's carbon emissions soon we're fucked...well, maybe not us, but our kids and their kids will be!

the overwhelming scientific opinion (not funded by big business) supports this.



Yes it is too true that public donation records show that big oil gives immense amounts of money towards global warming groups, go figure!

Also, the main scientific issue is this, humans produce between 3 and .5% of global carbon emissions. I'm providing the liberal and conservative estimates. Carbon Dioxide in fact is only a minuscule portion of total GHG's, less than 3%. So what you have is humans contributing a fraction of a fraction of a percentage point. There is no rational explanation for how this will damage the planet in any way. Furthermore I want to state how ANTI scientific the global warming crowd is. To state that "the science is settled" is a detrimental statement to scientific theory. Nothing is EVER settled, we can only work on the best theory of the moment. It shows that the whole globalist funded climatological movement (as well as the East Anglia leaked e-mails) has a prediction, and omit data that doesn't mesh with that prediction. Furthermore, anthropogenic global warming claims CANNOT be proven, because you cannot replicate it in a laboratory, that science can never be settled, ever. Their supposed "proof" are infantile computer models which don't even take into account the well studied fluctuations in the sun's output. This is ludicrous. Any computer model of the climate is doomed to fail anyways because it is such a complex system it would be impossible to input all the data required to accurately make a model, let alone factors we haven't even discovered yet. Conclusion, carbon taxes and one child policies can go to hell. Now THERE'S some anthropogenic warming!

_________________
For my clinically insane music
http://routenote.com/album/FOWL
http://www.myspace.com/fowlmusic
http://www.last.fm/music/fowl
http://www.deezer.com/en/#music/fowl
Your mental health requires buying my cd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 7:21 am
Posts: 3114
Location: SLS
Top 10 Climate Change Scientists :

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f1d9f856-d4ad ... abdc0.html



Name: Myles Allen
Age: 44
Nationality: British
Position: Head of Climate Dynamics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford
Expertise: Statistics and modelling

Allen believes the current approach to tackling climate change is ill-conceived. His latest paper, published earlier this year in Nature, argues we should be looking at the total amount of carbon that humankind emits, not the rate at which we do so – the measure the negotiators in Copenhagen will be focusing on.

Journalists are always asking Allen to say that unless emissions peak by 2015 we will pass a tipping point. He won’t, because he says such claims are nonsense. Worse, to pretend such arbitrary targets have a scientific basis will only disillusion the public once they find out the targets are going to be missed.

Name: John Mitchell
Age: 61
Nationality: British
Position: Director of Climate Science, Met Office
Expertise: Climate modelling

Modelling is a contentious area. There’s so much we don’t fully understand about the climate – clouds, hurricanes, ice melting, aerosols – that questions remain over the ability of super-computers to model future climate. One experiment – Climateprediction.net, which generated thousands of versions of the Met Office’s climate model and got people to run them on their home PCs – showed that models will produce radically different results if you make minor adjustments to their parameters. The week before I met Mitchell, the Met Office was forced to defend its “barbecue summer” press release – proving the difficulty of making even seasonal predictions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2958
Location: Sydney, OZ
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
I think you need to do more research on the subject. I agree water pollution is a problem as well as certain air pollution, but carbon emissions NO. Actually meteorologist and scientist's say that sun spot activity and ocean temp,along with volcanic activity impact global weather the most. The last ten years the globe is cooling and is going to cool about a degree more in 50 years. Cooling a degree will cause more harm to the globe than warming, check it out. Also through the ages vast forest fires left to burn have put out MORE carbon by a factor of over 100 times the amount that factories have in the last 100 years combined !!! So quit listening to that fat bastard Al Gore and do more research. Also Big business is what is fueling the climate hoax !!!!!


Wow...5 exclamation points. I guess you must be right. But what if you're wrong? And that's a big "what if". That sun spot and volcanic activity info is considered a blip in the overall trend and climate change deniers continue to refer to it as a fait accompli for their argument. It's more convenient for most people to disbelieve the notion of man-made climate change because it means they don't have to change their lifestyles.

You can do all the internet research you like, but I choose to believe that most of it is bullshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:50 am
Posts: 6036
Location: Málaga, Spain
Uncle Bernie wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
I think you need to do more research on the subject. I agree water pollution is a problem as well as certain air pollution, but carbon emissions NO. Actually meteorologist and scientist's say that sun spot activity and ocean temp,along with volcanic activity impact global weather the most. The last ten years the globe is cooling and is going to cool about a degree more in 50 years. Cooling a degree will cause more harm to the globe than warming, check it out. Also through the ages vast forest fires left to burn have put out MORE carbon by a factor of over 100 times the amount that factories have in the last 100 years combined !!! So quit listening to that fat bastard Al Gore and do more research. Also Big business is what is fueling the climate hoax !!!!!


Wow...5 exclamation points. I guess you must be right. But what if you're wrong? And that's a big "what if". That sun spot and volcanic activity info is considered a blip in the overall trend and climate change deniers continue to refer to it as a fait accompli for their argument. It's more convenient for most people to disbelieve the notion of man-made climate change because it means they don't have to change their lifestyles.

You can do all the internet research you like, but I choose to believe that most of it is bullshit.



are you telling me uncle bernie that you don't believe my theory about the sun being a giant lightbulb, powered by free-roaming space electricty?

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Solipsism Spotify


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:17 pm
Posts: 2386
Location: Kapuskasing, Ontario
Uncle Bernie wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
I think you need to do more research on the subject. I agree water pollution is a problem as well as certain air pollution, but carbon emissions NO. Actually meteorologist and scientist's say that sun spot activity and ocean temp,along with volcanic activity impact global weather the most. The last ten years the globe is cooling and is going to cool about a degree more in 50 years. Cooling a degree will cause more harm to the globe than warming, check it out. Also through the ages vast forest fires left to burn have put out MORE carbon by a factor of over 100 times the amount that factories have in the last 100 years combined !!! So quit listening to that fat bastard Al Gore and do more research. Also Big business is what is fueling the climate hoax !!!!!


Wow...5 exclamation points. I guess you must be right. But what if you're wrong? And that's a big "what if". That sun spot and volcanic activity info is considered a blip in the overall trend and climate change deniers continue to refer to it as a fait accompli for their argument. It's more convenient for most people to disbelieve the notion of man-made climate change because it means they don't have to change their lifestyles.

You can do all the internet research you like, but I choose to believe that most of it is bullshit.

So Climate experts who dissent against the orthodox view should not be investigated? And what of climategate, it is now proven the pro-global warming people have been colluding to cover up data that they don't like. Their entire climate model is now exposed as a complete fraud. Not that we didn't already know that based on the lies they'd already been caught in, but now it is proven they even discussed how to falsify data amongst the whole movement. Shame.

_________________
For my clinically insane music
http://routenote.com/album/FOWL
http://www.myspace.com/fowlmusic
http://www.last.fm/music/fowl
http://www.deezer.com/en/#music/fowl
Your mental health requires buying my cd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2958
Location: Sydney, OZ
[quote="TheCentralScrutinizer]
are you telling me uncle bernie that you don't believe my theory about the sun being a giant lightbulb, powered by free-roaming space electricty?[/quote]

:mrgreen: Of course scrutie, i believe that one's got to be true. you read it in rolling stone, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:17 pm
Posts: 2386
Location: Kapuskasing, Ontario
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438
This is where the propaganda ultimately leads.

_________________
For my clinically insane music
http://routenote.com/album/FOWL
http://www.myspace.com/fowlmusic
http://www.last.fm/music/fowl
http://www.deezer.com/en/#music/fowl
Your mental health requires buying my cd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:50 am
Posts: 6036
Location: Málaga, Spain
Uncle Bernie wrote:
[quote="TheCentralScrutinizer]
are you telling me uncle bernie that you don't believe my theory about the sun being a giant lightbulb, powered by free-roaming space electricty?[/quote]

:mrgreen: Of course scrutie, i believe that one's got to be true. you read it in rolling stone, right?[/quote]


:mrgreen:

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Solipsism Spotify


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 7833
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Whether or not one believes that climate change is caused by human activity or not, isn't the salient point that the world's oil, coal etc resources are finite?
Even assuming there is a conspiracy by many of the world's governments to hype climate change (theoretically possible, of course), doesn't the fact that we are running out of this stuff fairly soon (I know estimates vary, but sooner or later it will happen) mean that we have to start employing alternatives?
As regards nuclear, I'm not an enormous fan, to tell you the truth, although I do think that some countries are safer with it (e.g. France, where they seem to be able to use it without Simpsons-like accidents) than others (e.g. Russia or Great Britain, where the solution to the problems at Windscale appears to have been to rename the place Sellafield). My major problem with it is the waste, which they still don't seem to have worked out.
Solar would be the ideal solution imo, if someone could spend more on the technology - I may be wrong, but it would seem to make the consumer independent of any companies.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 5609
this is what critical thinking looks and sounds like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
just think, with a little bit of this
you won't have to spend so much time cleaning the caca off your shoes

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
punknaynowned wrote:
this is what critical thinking looks and sounds like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
just think, with a little bit of this
you won't have to spend so much time cleaning the caca off your shoes

Thank you. That was just beautiful.

_________________
"Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read and what we must believe?" T.J.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 7833
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Very interesting video- I'd like to see even more of the emails, though; not just the snippets the main-stream media have doled out.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 876 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 36  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group