jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (90 posts)

LOL. Can't. Breathe. Global Warming and Asteroids?

  1. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … bU7awpJctQ

    "An asteroid. What's coming our way? Is this an effect of, perhaps, global warming...?"

    I think the term 'WTF' applies here.

    1. bBerean profile image61
      bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Global warming is bound to increase asteroid tourism to earth.  What asteroid wouldn't want to visit a nice, warm planet?

    2. dspallino profile image60
      dspallinoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      LOL! I saw this earlier.

    3. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It left again without ever stopping.  We must be too warm - always a good thing when looking at asteroidal visitation.  Better crank up those CO2 generators.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Haha. Well heck, I don't blame it. Half of it is flying out there, unshielded from the sun. It's got to be burning up. And freezing, maybe that's why it can't make up its mind.

        I wonder what's next? We've already blamed murder rates on global warming. What about the weak dollar? Can we blame that on global warming?

        Also, I think the Big Bang was started by global warming too.

        1. bBerean profile image61
          bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think I saw an interesting book on global warming being promoted in an infomercial on the Al Jazeera network by one large man accompanied by a guy in a polar bear suit.

    4. tsadjatko profile image77
      tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://iowadefense.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/the-sky-is-falling.jpg

      umm... what does global warming have to do with A steroids?...or for that matter even B steroids. :-)

      1. bBerean profile image61
        bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What a tangled web we weave.  I am sure we will find out pro athletes are involved.

        1. tsadjatko profile image77
          tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol... Yeah - they put the ball in global

  2. donotfear profile image91
    donotfearposted 4 years ago

    Ah yes....
    global warming;  it's all George Bush's fault.

    1. bBerean profile image61
      bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes it is.  Had Gore been president we could have had a head start on raising taxes and dumping the country's money down the big green toilet.  Al Jazeera could have been the new CNN, singing his praises while putting money in his pocket.  At least the current administration is doing all they can to make up for lost time.  wink

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        hehe
        you two have it right!

        "the big green toilet"....lol
        good description.

      2. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You'll wish money had gone into the big green toilet in about 50 years when we've exhausted the world's supply of commercial oil and coal, and we have no choice BUT to shift to other forms of energy.

        1. bBerean profile image61
          bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Even if the environmental issues were as dire as you imply, the money that goes in the big green toilet just pads the wallets of Obama supporters.  It hasn't been helping any real or imagined crisis.  He is all about redistributing wealth and the big green toilet is one of his favorite portals for it.  So no, I will never wish more money went into the big green toilet.  I would also like the rights and jobs that are being flushed in the name of the green religion back too, please. Turns out Green is the new Red.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image85
            Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Environmental issues"? Umm, try "we're freaking running out of the stuff, and when we do, there's going to be panic and bedlam and anarchy when people can't heat their houses or afford electricity anymore."

            1. tsadjatko profile image77
              tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "50 years when we've exhausted the world's supply of commercial oil and coal" where do you get that idea - there are hundreds of years of resources available. You'll be long dead and gone before there is any problem with the world's energy supplies..

              1. Zelkiiro profile image85
                Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So it's okay to ignore the elephant in the room because it won't go on a thrashing rampage while I personally am alive? It's just fine and dandy to let my grandchildren be trampled into chunky salsa just because I didn't want to take any initiative to address it?

                1. tsadjatko profile image77
                  tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes you can address it leave us sooner rather than later.

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image85
                    Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Way to massively miss the point of the metaphor!

                    Here, the elephant represents the looming threat of dwindling fossil fuel supplies, and by refusing to acknowledge it and pretending that everything will be great forever and ever, you're essentially wiping your ass on the future just because it's not here yet.

                2. bBerean profile image61
                  bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I think your seeing elephants.  Don't make me pay to battle your green elephant.  Obamacare might cover it.

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image85
                    Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    A healthcare reform isn't going to magically put more oil into the ground.

                3. Shanna11 profile image92
                  Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  chunky salsa? Omg the mental images here are horrifying....why on earth did you compare trampled grandchildren to chunky salsa? Urgghhh

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image85
                    Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "Chunky salsa" is a funny term often used in gaming, meant to express the excessive force of an attack in a quick, easily-relatable visual metaphor.

  3. scottcgruber profile image91
    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago

    Kudos to Bill Nye for deflecting that idiotic question with an intelligent answer. It took a lot of class to not respond with "no, Judy, you moron," and for that I salute him

  4. Credence2 profile image84
    Credence2posted 4 years ago

    So you righties are having a party, more goober peas anti-intellectiual stimulation, I trust?

    Of course, foreign objects striking the earth has nohing to do with climate conditions on this planet, but I as know that somehow you would drag Obama in on this as well.

    I never know what ocean that you all spawn from, its really hard core

    1. bBerean profile image61
      bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So you missed the part that we are mocking how the reporter thought global warming might be responsible.  lol  Also you may want to use spell and grammar check before planting your flag on the higher intellectual ground.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No kidding.
        It tickled me when he referred to goober peas.
        Goober peas.........oh I gotta go look that up if'n I wanna be intellectual.......lol

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You refer to the wrong medium.
      Our oldest ancestor was made from the dust of the ground.

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, Brenda, I refer to peanuts. While I too subscribe to your idea of the source of the human family, it is not universally observed.

      2. scottcgruber profile image91
        scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well, no. Our oldest ancestor was definitely water-based. We've only been on land for the last few hundred million years.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Tell me his name please.
          And did he never evolve into frothing at the mouth and barking?

          1. scottcgruber profile image91
            scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            LUCA. The Last Universal Common Ancestor.

            And it did evolve into frothing at the mouth and barking, as your existence demonstrates.

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              LOLOL
              I just now read about LUCA
              and how some mad scientists are trying to make a "tree of life"!
              Those guys are nuts.
              Figuratively and mentally.
              And quite uneducated, it seems!
              All they'd have to do to find the "tree of life" would be to read the real history of mankind.   That would be the Bible of course.
              If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious to know that they're looking for a needle in a haystack while the evidence is all around them and in a Book already!

        2. tsadjatko profile image77
          tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What's a few hundred million years here or there? No witnesses around to prove or disprove it are there?

          1. scottcgruber profile image91
            scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Our genes are the witnesses. They prove beyond a doubt our aquatic ancestry.

            Also, fossils. They're witnesses too.

            1. tsadjatko profile image77
              tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Oh give me a break - they aren't eye witnesses and you know they are all subject to interpretation and therefore error. I refer you to this posted by DTMBro in a forum, one of a multitude of examples to consider when discussing the infallibility you seem to lend to science:
              "Funny isn't it ? For how many years were we told the appendix was a vestigial organ the human body did not need - even though they had no idea what it's original function could have been. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. It is no longer routinely removed and discarded if it is healthy and the appendix now appears to have a reason to be – as a "safe house" for the beneficial bacteria living in the human gut. Beneficial bacteria in the appendix that aid digestion can ride out a bout of diarrhea that completely evacuates the intestines and emerge afterwards to repopulate the gut.

              If scientists weren't brainwashed to believe in evolution they would never have concluded the appendix was a worthless vestigial organ but because science didn't have all the answers back then they shoved their conclusions (based on nothing but belief in evolutionary theory) down our throats. And these same cynics would be the first to say people superstitiously turn to a belief in God for comfort in the face of the unexplained when they themselves invariably turn to their unsubstantiated but believed theory of evolution when their science has no other answer. It is the height of hipocracy and plain pathetic. Only when scientific advancement and discovery reveals an explanation are they forced to drop their false conclusions (based solely on faith in a theory) but life goes on as if they never tried to pull the wool over our eyes. I'd bet the majority of people still think the appendix is a vestigial organ."

              And you think genes and fossils are eye witnesses of what existed hundreds of millions of years ago - you have been brainwashed. The only thing these have in common with an eyewitness is they can lie.

              1. scottcgruber profile image91
                scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Scientists aren't brainwashed to believe in evolution. It is the theory that emerges from the evidence.

                And they haven't "concluded" the appendix to be a worthless vestigial organ. Vestigial doesn't mean worthless - it just means that an organ has lost most of its original function through evolution. It can even develop new ones and still be vestigial.

      3. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        +++++++++++++++++++

    3. scottcgruber profile image91
      scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's probably a mix of reality-based people like me making fun of Judy's awful segue and climate deniers who have been conditioned to froth at the mouth and bark talking points at the mere mention of climate change.

      Sadly ironic, really. The science-illiterate making fun of science-illiteracy.

  5. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago

    yeah I looked it up

    goober peas
    boiled peanuts

    Well, I gotta say I've never eaten boiled peanuts that I can remember.........
    And I'm pretty sure that makes no difference in anyone's intellect.
    I may not have known the definition of goober peas, but I do know that mankind didn't come from the ocean.

    So...you were joking about what ocean we sprang from?
    lol  Okay I can handle that.

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      'but I do know that mankind didn't come from the ocean.'

      Yes, we both know that, but how do you prove it? That is the problem between left and right, what you say is an established fact, is open to interpretation by others and their truth is just as valid as yours in this kind of debate. But that is for another thread as I drift from the topic

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Common sense proves it!

        So...you believe it and therefore to you it is an "established fact",  yet you play into the other side, which has NO proof at all, not even common-sense proof!

        Are you just playin' devil's advocate or what?

        1. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Common sense is not an incontrovertible conclusion of proof. Your common sense ican be considered another person's nonsense. Not everyone subscribes to the Judeo-Christian viewpoint and they have the right to do so. Being a liberal means that Ihave to acknowledge Muslims, Mormons, etc all are just as adamant in their doctrines, what makes you right and they wrong.? You can only truly convince yourself. No devils advocate just recognizing that religion is touchy and we get into trouble trying to create a universal standard when there are more 'religions'   with widely varied doctrines on this planet than any one of us can count.
          I know that conservatives dislike the concept of relativism put forth by liberals, they prefer absolutes but an absolute requires 2 plus 2 equal 4 kinds of support as proof

  6. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    I must say Jason, I expect a higher level of discourse from you.  You are too intelligent to be engaging in the anti-intellectual game of who can be more incendiary about scientific findings. It is a futile attempt to justify your exaltation of the material over the personal.

    Why would you lump in fear of being hit by an asteroid with the very real consequences of climate change that are thrusting themselves upon our culpably apathetic society?  It's not only a false analogy, but something no serious thinker would even remotely suggest.

    The sea levels are rising; the earth is warming; the floods are increasing; the storms are becoming more intense.  You, and others like you, will have to answer your children and grandchildren when they ask you why engaged in the true generational theft, a theft which is robbing them of a habitable world!  A cognitively depthless answer of, "Well, I wanted more stuff; or, I believed it was a conspiracy by climatologists the world around" will surely not suffice.

  7. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago

    Eh......I think it might be important to note that a meteor also hit Russia in 1908.    And there have been others.
    So....I don't think today's meteor strike was a sign of global warming at all.   Stuff just happens, ya know?!

    1. scottcgruber profile image91
      scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You're just figuring that out now?

      1. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This forum started because one of the illustrious...and always eager to appease the left....members of the press suggested that the two may have a connection.
        Go school them.

        1. scottcgruber profile image91
          scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ohh, and here I was thinking Judy was either completely science illiterate or just making a clumsy segue.

          But yes, now I see what you mean. It's obviously a plot by CNN to appeal to the left by connecting everything with climate change -- even astronomical events that someone with a grade-school science education would know are not possibly connected.

          I'd ask if you right-wingers even think about the logic of your ridiculous conspiracy theories before you spout them, but I already know you don't.

          Your brains are not wired that way. You conservatives do much of your thinking with your right amygdalas - the fear center of the brain - which leads to you all thinking that everything is a conspiracy and anyone different from you is a threat.

          It explains your stances on foreign policy, gun policy, economic policy, and your hatred of science.

          But don't worry - we liberals won't discriminate against you because your brains are differently abled. We're not wired that way.

          1. Barefootfae profile image61
            Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You agree with what I said and then attack me for know reason after I made no statement regarding what you say I said.

            Right?

          2. Barefootfae profile image61
            Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You attack me for saying nothing about any of that but the blockhead on CNN is ok?
            Just made a mistake?

            1. scottcgruber profile image91
              scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you for proving my point. smile

              1. Barefootfae profile image61
                Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't make a conspiracy theory  here or any of those things you listed.
                Having a hate day are we?

                1. scottcgruber profile image91
                  scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hate day? No, I'm liberal. We don't have those.

                  You did indeed state a conspiracy theory, however. Your reference to "one of the illustrious -- and always eager to please the left -- members of the press" is an unproven statement not based in fact. Therefore, it is a conspiracy theory.

                  Moreover, with just one sentence you wrapped up your hatred for liberals and your contempt for science into a neat little package. All while demonstrating that you don't understand either.

                  1. bBerean profile image61
                    bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No need answering my last post...if I had read this first I wouldn't have bothered.  Many liberals traffic in hate, promoting dissention between class, race and gender.  If you don't see it but rather perpetuate it there is nothing your going to listen to, so why spin my wheels trying?

                  2. Barefootfae profile image61
                    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ah....glad to see they have you running their talking points like the rest.
                    No wonder you don't think you were being hateful.

                  3. Barefootfae profile image61
                    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    How does it feel to be a complete sycophant?

          3. bBerean profile image61
            bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You look at the propoganda on both sides from the last presidential election and come to the conclusion that the right is the one weilding fear as a tactic?  Yes, both sides do to some degree, but this last election it was all the incumbent had...and it was masterfully promoted.

  8. innersmiff profile image80
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    I think the point is to demonstrate the severe lack of thought that goes into judgments on climate change, suggesting that our views may have become skewed due to the media's insistence that every time there's a storm, a flood or a blizzard that this is positive proof of global warming (yet the lack of statistically significant warming since 1996 is just 'natural variation' according to the MET office http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/h … g-stalled/).

    Does anybody think that the issue of man-made climate change/global warming has ever been sensationalised? Or do you think the depiction of exploding children sceptical of climate change was humorous and necessary? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … E3g0i2rz4w

    Perhaps it's time to analyse our own views?

  9. bBerean profile image61
    bBereanposted 4 years ago

    "Human activity has doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide and raised the average global temperature over the past two centuries," is far from a fact.  Global warming?  Perhaps.  Conclusively attributed to human activity?  No.  Propaganda supporting that idea has been well funded and relentless though, as it has been one of the most lucrative agendas in history.  Since that cash cow is far from dry, the promotion will continue until perhaps some day almost everyone will have been persuaded to drink the Kool-aid.  This was not what I was addressing anyway.  I am not familiar with "Donors Trust", but if you feel I am promoting their talking points, it sounds like they are worth looking into. 



    Thinking you negated my entire argument, tells me you totally missed what that was.  Actually, in part you have supported it by acknowledging that the environmental movement is largely about money.  It is not driven by some noble desire to improve anything.  I never said the traditional energy companies weren't similarly motivated.  I would say the environmental side is more disingenuous, but realize on the surface that appears to be subjective. 

    I do believe the urgency regarding the environment is blown out of proportion in the interest of garnering support and publicity, to be parlayed into generous grants, contracts, and salaries.   I agree, we should always be looking for more efficient and effective sources and utilization of energy.  We should not make bad decisions just so we can say we are doing something, however.  We also should not ignore progress being made improving traditional resources, which can at least buy us time to properly develop alternatives.       



    Once again, not conclusive.  "Science" is not as noble, pure or objective as those whose livelihoods are rooted in it, or whose agendas are potentially driven by it if "properly interpreted", would have us believe.  Data can be spun to support whatever conclusion secures the grant, contract or recognition.  This is why both sides of many issues seem to have compelling data to back them up.  Often, in law, it is about who has the best team of lawyers, not who has the truth.  So too, with scientists.  How often do you hear of conclusions, (unless totally inescapable), that fly in the face of a study or project's funding or initiator's ideology?  No point digging up data to throw back and forth, the proof is in the pudding and in a great many cases our money has been, and is being, flushed down that big green toilet while our rights and freedoms are eroded.

    1. scottcgruber profile image91
      scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You are accusing all climate scientists of scientific fraud. I hope you have some serious evidence to back that libelous statement up.

      Though I can think of an instance of a study's conclusions flying in the face of the funder's ideology. There was a recent climate change study funded in by the Koch brothers and other climate deniers and led by climate "skeptic" Richard Muller that concluded that global warming was real and at least 74% attributable to human activity.

      So yes, sometimes it happens.   


      Right. But we liberals are the ones trafficking in fear.

      Remind me - what rights and freedoms have you lost as a result of the environmental movement and climate science?

      1. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Fortunately none as they are both a steaming load of BS.

        1. scottcgruber profile image91
          scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So you haven't lost any rights or freedoms as a result of the environmental movement or climate science. Good.

          Then why all the fear? What's the harm in letting the scientists and environmentalists do their jobs?

          1. Barefootfae profile image61
            Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Fear?
            What are you talking about?
            You know from your apparent veiwpoint we should just empty Congress and put your scientists and environmentalists in their place.

  10. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Haha, I can't believe the way this thread derailed. Sorry, whoever it was who complained about Obama-bashing or some such nonsense, this thread had nothing to do with that.

    1. Barefootfae profile image61
      Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No it was you stupid Conservatives from the guy who doesn't know who his leaders are.
      You know.....the fearless kind?

      1. scottcgruber profile image91
        scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's not nice to call people stupid, Fae. Even conservatives.

        1. Barefootfae profile image61
          Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well don't call people that then.......even as an implication.

 
working