I doubt you can easily calculate the total waste heat of all human activity, which is what my second example actually was. Transportation and industry were only examples, not the entire range of of possibilities.
That's not to say that other people can't determine waste heat generated by people. Looking at Wikipedia, it looks like the scientists calculate waste heat will cause a 3 degree Celsius increase by the year 2300. That's not an inconsequential amount.
I never said all people who I disagree with use stupid arguments. I said that stupid arguments are used to support global warming, or the bad effects it will have.
Since you can't even get that part of my post right, what are the chances your others comments are clearly thought out?
The argument is the same with other species too. The other one I think of is about alligators or crocodiles. Their sex is determined by temperature of the eggs during development, so global warming is going to make them all become one sex, and then they'll go extinct through lack of mates.
This ignores the fact that the species has been around for millions of years, and certainly in that time has been in hotter and colder conditions. Yet the species survives.
This is part of the problem I have with the global warming topic. Stupid claims that are easily countered get thrown about as if they are solid proof of impending doom.
If it's part of a natural cycle based on solar output, celestial travel, the Earth's core rotation, or other massive-scale events, there isn't a damn thing we can do about it short of building a large screen in space to cut off sunlight.
If it is caused by man, but from reasons other than carbon dioxide, such as waste heat from transportation and industrial activity, there's not a damn thing we can do about it short of halting all industry on the planet.
There are a whole lot of assumptions as to what is causing the temperature increase we have been seeing for about two centuries now.
That's something I've asked about on other forums as well as here before.
What separates the left, especially the European version of left, from the American concept of left/liberal?
Is it really just ownership of land and business? Because it seems the American left wants all things that the European left does - wage parity, paid college education, national health care, abortion rights, environmental regulations, banking regulations, other business regulations, etc.
So what sets the far left so much apart, other than simply the fact that the American left believes in home ownership, and communists don't? (Or at least it's very curtailed.)
Wait a sec. He had a Magic: the Gathering club? That's cool. I loved playing Magic back in the day. Never got too deep into it, but it was fun if you ignored the greedy bastards in it.
So he migrated from one overpriced product that made it easy to scam someone, to another.
You know that saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."?
You are reading details into gangadude's message that he did not say. He specifically mentions knowing some of the ones who are speaking out, and his views of them specifically. Nowhere does he say that no Native American is offended or has the right to be offended.
So, as I say, your attempted use of formal debate rules to call him out is an improperly utilized crutch.
Slashdot Mirror
So you can dispute my argument, if you redefine the terms in the argument.
I doubt you can easily calculate the total waste heat of all human activity, which is what my second example actually was. Transportation and industry were only examples, not the entire range of of possibilities.
That's not to say that other people can't determine waste heat generated by people. Looking at Wikipedia, it looks like the scientists calculate waste heat will cause a 3 degree Celsius increase by the year 2300. That's not an inconsequential amount.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
I never said all people who I disagree with use stupid arguments. I said that stupid arguments are used to support global warming, or the bad effects it will have.
Since you can't even get that part of my post right, what are the chances your others comments are clearly thought out?
The argument is the same with other species too. The other one I think of is about alligators or crocodiles. Their sex is determined by temperature of the eggs during development, so global warming is going to make them all become one sex, and then they'll go extinct through lack of mates.
This ignores the fact that the species has been around for millions of years, and certainly in that time has been in hotter and colder conditions. Yet the species survives.
This is part of the problem I have with the global warming topic. Stupid claims that are easily countered get thrown about as if they are solid proof of impending doom.
If it's part of a natural cycle based on solar output, celestial travel, the Earth's core rotation, or other massive-scale events, there isn't a damn thing we can do about it short of building a large screen in space to cut off sunlight.
If it is caused by man, but from reasons other than carbon dioxide, such as waste heat from transportation and industrial activity, there's not a damn thing we can do about it short of halting all industry on the planet.
There are a whole lot of assumptions as to what is causing the temperature increase we have been seeing for about two centuries now.
So you are saying that in the next two hundred years, either A) we will see an ice-free Antarctica; or B) we will see glaciers covering all of Canada.
Because that is how severely the climate has changed in the past.
What does this have to do with Global Warming and groundcover?
... Ouila! A cheap and nervous workforce - a corporate executive's wet dream!
Nevermind that it's not spelled exactly correctly, and is foreign to you and me, but my god man, that word starts with the letter "V".
Was it ... bagel making? :^)
How few years do you think before the country collapses?
I give us less than a decade. Maybe even as little as five years.
No, I was just joking with ya. :^)
Actually, I'm surprised there weren't others jumping on you about your comment. Not everyone can find the humor.
That's something I've asked about on other forums as well as here before.
What separates the left, especially the European version of left, from the American concept of left/liberal?
Is it really just ownership of land and business? Because it seems the American left wants all things that the European left does - wage parity, paid college education, national health care, abortion rights, environmental regulations, banking regulations, other business regulations, etc.
So what sets the far left so much apart, other than simply the fact that the American left believes in home ownership, and communists don't? (Or at least it's very curtailed.)
Honest question, and I'm open to all answers.
Of course I do. I just didn't want to drag the point out too much.
What do you suggest we do for people who say "in the cloud of things"?
It would be an interesting graph, showing how many users here are on the liberal/left side or conservative/right side of various topics here.
But even liberals can make jokes about Chicago's reputation. Especially if they live(d) there.
Oh shit! Sorry. Picked up the wrong cue card. I'll try again.
Sexist!
Racist!
That's going to go right over the heads of these young whippersnappers.
Why do you people keep summoning me??
Wait a sec. He had a Magic: the Gathering club? That's cool. I loved playing Magic back in the day. Never got too deep into it, but it was fun if you ignored the greedy bastards in it.
So he migrated from one overpriced product that made it easy to scam someone, to another.
No, you do Save As..., and add a number at the end of the filename. That's how the pro's do it.
Watch your back. There's still double and triple digit IDs floating around here. Someone may yell at you to get off their lawn. :^)
Not if they don't have to.
You know that saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."?
You are reading details into gangadude's message that he did not say. He specifically mentions knowing some of the ones who are speaking out, and his views of them specifically. Nowhere does he say that no Native American is offended or has the right to be offended.
So, as I say, your attempted use of formal debate rules to call him out is an improperly utilized crutch.
Ah, high school debate team terms for the loss.
Gangadude explains himself very well, if you bother to actually have a discussion with him, such as rokstar did.
Have fun with that useless crutch you're waving.