UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-05-2012, 10:47 AM   #51
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Oh my god blaze. No. CFC layers eat up(that is, react with the ozone in) the ozone layer causing ozone depletion. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect but everything to do with global warming.

Edit: It is ALSO a greenhouse gas but the main thing is the ozone layer which is harder to replace and has immediate consequences.
__________________
Spoiler: show

Last edited by Rangeet; 03-05-2012 at 10:50 AM.
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 11:55 AM   #52
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Self-defense and patriotism. I want to claim the globe in the name of America, not Poland! Except yes, I really do want to claim it for Poland. That's a lie.
I'll let the judge and jury handle whether that's good enough or not.

Quote:
Is it ever really that simple? We thought that eradicating al Qaeda was going to be easy, but for every member we killed, there were fifty new recruits frustrated with the senseless violence. The hatred spread even to the highest levels of government until even the leaders hated us.
No, those governments hated us already, they just have more excuses for it now. Also, the strict "Rules of Engagement" severely limit our military's effectiveness in eradicating Al Qaeda. Beyond that, the additional recruits are just proof we need to fully eradicate Al Qaeda, not just kill a few of their leaders and then make peace, but to Utterly Destroy them, so they will no longer be a thorn in our side, and to send a message to any other potential threats, "the same will happen to you, should you choose to be a threat to America."


Quote:
I'm not guilty of Straw-Man. Probably pedantry, because I took your statements quite literally.
You completely set up another argument (Your missiles) and then proceeded to use it to poke holes against my argument. If that's not straw man, what is?

Quote:
Also, we've been over this. Common sense and Pascal's Wager completely overrules "Global Warming is a Hoax" because

a.) why would otherwise perfectly reputable scientists lie about something like this? It's not as if they have anything to gain from scaremongering, unlike the Tea Party.
That's easy.
1. They do have something to gain: Grants from government, lots of money for supplying the "public" with the "correct" answers.
2. Government has MUCH to gain from Global Warming: Excuses to tax more, excuses to limit freedom, excuses to expand their control, excuses to set up organizations that then cycle back to keep them elected/in power. Power. Money. Those are always the reasons for deception.
3. Reputable scientists jumped on the bandwagon prematurely, and now stand to lose A LOT of credibility and respect (and grants) if they change their minds, or find evidence against their previous claims. That's pressure enough for most to keep silent even if they know the truth and disagree with the lie.
4. Other reputable scientists make contrary claims, but, being in the minority, have a smaller voice, and also stand to be harassed by those on the bandwagon, trying to protect their own pride.
5. The scientific studies of the "Reputable Scientists" have been reviewed and revised by government no less then 3 times. With a party having such a vested interest in keeping a lie alive (Government), it would be foolhardy to assume the text has not been altered, as well it has been, and altered to promote Global Warming where no such promotion originally existed in the reputable scientists' assessments.

Quote:
b.) what if you're wrong and global warming really is happening? Humanity = screwed if you get your way.
What if I'm wrong? Well I'm not wrong, but even if I were, nothing's stopping you and your buddies from trying to make a difference in the private sector as Private Citizens, instead of relying on Government to fix things.
Furthermore, it's a perfect opportunity to fund research for space colonization, as if such a "disaster" as Global Warming were to occur, the ability to live in space and on other planets would allow the human race to survive, and maybe even prosper, throughout the disaster period both on Earth and in other places. Instead of wasting money trying to inhibit growth and roll back technology developments (as the government is currently doing to combat "Global Warming,") use that money to promote stronger growth and better technological developments. Face the future head-on, instead of trying to run from it.

Quote:
c.) what kind of evidence do you have on your side? It is a proven fact that the earth has gone through warmer and cooler periods (case in point ice ages), proved by examining sedimentary layers in places like Utah. Global warming really is happening. The problem arises when you consider - is it normal, or is it being caused by humanity? With fossil fuels that produce cfc's and other greenhouse gases that eat away at the ozone layer and trap heat inside the Earth's atmosphere, I would say that the evidence swings strongly in favor of "not a hoax".
Fossil Fuels don't produce CFCs, CFCs are a resultant of man-made chemicals, such as early refrigerants, and have nothing to do with Global Warming, except as a remnant "buzzword" from a bygone era where people were freaked about a "Global Cooling" and "the Next Ice Age." -.-

Yeah the Earth goes through periodic and natural Climate fluctuations. But that's all they are, is natural fluctuations. The only solid "proof" I've seen in favor of Global Warming, is the correlation between Temperatures and CO2 content in the air as evidenced by Ice Core Samples. But, as I say time and time again (which apparently no one listens to) "Correlation does not necessitate Causation", and when you look at the real data, the CO2 spikes actually lag behind the temperature spikes, suggesting rather its really the other way around (Temperature increases cause an increase in CO2 in the air).

Quote:
Please enlighten us as to what explanation you have for the effect of CFC's and greenhouse gases produced by the combustion of fossil fuels on the earth's atmosphere and how it is not at all linked to the rising temperatures around the globe. Why aren't the CFC's eating away at the ozone layer? What's happening to the greenhouse gases?
Um, maybe we're just in a cyclical warming period at the same time as we're using Fossil Fuels. That's the problem with you "scientists", you think everything always has to be related in some manner. Or maybe the increasing number of sunspots has something to do with temperatures?

Considering there was a drastic "Cool Down" Period during the 1980s or so, that caused just as much hysteria as current Global Warming is now, added to the fact that, despite drastic increases in CO2 emissions, temperatures seem to be evening out, instead of rising drastically like they ought if Fossil Fuels were the cause, I feel quite secure in my assertion that manmade Global Warming is a hoax.

Besides that, the concerted efforts against American liberties by government (often under the name of "saving the planet from global warming"), the numerous Global Warming research grants offered, as well as the government's revisions made to the scientific studies on Climate Change from the "Central Authority" on manmade Global Warming. It's hard for me to even consider the possibility Global Warming could exist.

Here's a few absurd slogans (most I made up myself) that detail my sentiments on this matter:
Spoiler: show

Reduce CO2 emissions; breath less.
Reduce CO2 in the atmosphere; plant a tree.
Reduce CO2 emissions: Slaughter the breathers!
Darwinists Unite: Survival of the Fittest! If you can't survive post-Global Warming, you don't deserve to live.
Whatever happened to the Next Ice Age?
X Trillion people in the world breathing daily, and we worry about burning a couple old trees?
X Trillion animals in the world breathing daily, and we worry about burning a couple old trees?
Save the Earth! Live on Mars.
Monkey See, Monkey Do.
Blame the Sunspots!


If you want to see irrefutable logical argument against manmade Global Warming, check my Signature spoiler, the bottom link about Global Warming. Should convert anyone who doesn't stuff their head in the sand.

Every freedom we lose in efforts to prevent global warming, is a freedom we will never get back after the "crisis" comes to an end, regardless of that end.

Last edited by unownmew; 03-05-2012 at 01:34 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 02:15 PM   #53
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
[QUOTE=unownmew;328990]No, those governments hated us already, they just have more excuses for it now. Also, the strict "Rules of Engagement" severely limit our military's effectiveness in eradicating Al Qaeda. Beyond that, the additional recruits are just proof we need to fully eradicate Al Qaeda, not just kill a few of their leaders and then make peace, but to Utterly Destroy them, so they will no longer be a thorn in our side, and to send a message to any other potential threats, "the same will happen to you, should you choose to be a threat to America."
Quote:
You completely set up another argument (Your missiles) and then proceeded to use it to poke holes against my argument. If that's not straw man, what is?
Oh. Well, when you put it that way it's not a fallacy at all.


That's easy.
1. They do have something to gain: Grants from government, lots of money for supplying the "public" with the "correct" answers.
Quote:
2. Government has MUCH to gain from Global Warming: Excuses to tax more, excuses to limit freedom, excuses to expand their control, excuses to set up organizations that then cycle back to keep them elected/in power. Power. Money. Those are always the reasons for deception.
Drill, baby, drill! Face it, government has much to gain from both sides.
Quote:
3. Reputable scientists jumped on the bandwagon prematurely, and now stand to lose A LOT of credibility and respect (and grants) if they change their minds, or find evidence against their previous claims. That's pressure enough for most to keep silent even if they know the truth and disagree with the lie.
I don't know about you, but if more than 2 more scientists on the IPCC say that their work was false (as opposed to the singular nutcase who wants to be a double agent), then I will agree that it is worth a very in-depth investigation.
Quote:
4. Other reputable scientists make contrary claims, but, being in the minority, have a smaller voice, and also stand to be harassed by those on the bandwagon, trying to protect their own pride.
YOUR authority is wrong, but MY authority is RIGHT! When are you going to learn that logical fallacies sit on both sides of the fence? That bias is present in every work, even the ones you agree with?
Quote:
5. The scientific studies of the "Reputable Scientists" have been reviewed and revised by government no less then 3 times. With a party having such a vested interest in keeping a lie alive (Government), it would be foolhardy to assume the text has not been altered, as well it has been, and altered to promote Global Warming where no such promotion originally existed in the reputable scientists' assessments.
You're falling apart here. Government is currently:

a.) bribing scientists
b.) running a country
c.) losing money on supposedly more efficient (by your claims) fossil fuels

and now they are altering the text so they can...what? Gain power over the American people? Learn2Democracy.


Quote:
What if I'm wrong? Well I'm not wrong, but even if I were, nothing's stopping you and your buddies from trying to make a difference in the private sector as Private Citizens, instead of relying on Government to fix things.
I must do anything in my power to help my fellow countryman. This is my responsibility as a US citizen.

Quote:
Furthermore, it's a perfect opportunity to fund research for space colonization, as if such a "disaster" as Global Warming were to occur, the ability to live in space and on other planets would allow the human race to survive, and maybe even prosper, throughout the disaster period both on Earth and in other places. Instead of wasting money trying to inhibit growth and roll back technology developments (as the government is currently doing to combat "Global Warming,") use that money to promote stronger growth and better technological developments. Face the future head-on, instead of trying to run from it.


Fossil Fuels don't produce CFCs, CFCs are a resultant of man-made chemicals, such as early refrigerants, and have nothing to do with Global Warming, except as a remnant "buzzword" from a bygone era where people were freaked about a "Global Cooling" and "the Next Ice Age." -.-

Yeah the Earth goes through periodic and natural Climate fluctuations. But that's all they are, is natural fluctuations. The only solid "proof" I've seen in favor of Global Warming, is the correlation between Temperatures and CO2 content in the air as evidenced by Ice Core Samples. But, as I say time and time again (which apparently no one listens to) "Correlation does not necessitate Causation", and when you look at the real data, the CO2 spikes actually lag behind the temperature spikes, suggesting rather its really the other way around (Temperature increases cause an increase in CO2 in the air).


Um, maybe we're just in a cyclical warming period at the same time as we're using Fossil Fuels. That's the problem with you "scientists", you think everything always has to be related in some manner. Or maybe the increasing number of sunspots has something to do with temperatures?

Considering there was a drastic "Cool Down" Period during the 1980s or so, that caused just as much hysteria as current Global Warming is now, added to the fact that, despite drastic increases in CO2 emissions, temperatures seem to be evening out, instead of rising drastically like they ought if Fossil Fuels were the cause, I feel quite secure in my assertion that Global Warming is a hoax.

Besides that, the concerted efforts against American liberties by government, the numerous Global Warming research grants offered, as well as the government's revisions made to the scientific studies on Climate Change from the "Central Authority" on Global Warming. It's hard for me to even consider the possibility Global Warming could exist.

Here's a few absurd slogans (most I made up myself) that detail my sentiments on this matter:
Spoiler: show

Reduce CO2 emissions; breath less.
Reduce CO2 in the atmosphere; plant a tree.
Reduce CO2 emissions: Slaughter the breathers!
Darwinists Unite: Survival of the Fittest! If you can't survive post-Global Warming, you don't deserve to live.
Whatever happened to the Next Ice Age?
X Trillion people in the world breathing daily, and we worry about burning a couple old trees?
X Trillion animals in the world breathing daily, and we worry about burning a couple old trees?
Save the Earth! Live on Mars.
Monkey See, Monkey Do.
Blame the Sunspots!


If you want to see irrefutable logical argument against Global Warming, check my Signature spoiler, the bottom link about Global Warming. Should convert anyone who doesn't stuff their head in the sand.
later. internet disapp
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 02:45 PM   #54
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post

later. internet disapp
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 03:47 PM   #55
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
Oh my god blaze. No. CFC layers eat up(that is, react with the ozone in) the ozone layer causing ozone depletion. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect but everything to do with global warming.

Edit: It is ALSO a greenhouse gas but the main thing is the ozone layer which is harder to replace and has immediate consequences.
I apologize for misuderstanding his post. I though he meant that the ozone layer was part of global warming. My apologies.

Actually, the consequences are not as severe as many people would like to say it is, since ozone depletion has to occur under very specific cirucmstances. Like stratospheric clouds, which only occur in Antarctica and rarely in the arctic.
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 04:30 PM   #56
DaveTheFishGuy
Primordial Fishbeast
 
DaveTheFishGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,258
Send a message via Skype™ to DaveTheFishGuy
This thread is already making me sad, don't make me have to step in and explain basic climatology to y'all.

>deo

I lol'd so hard.
DaveTheFishGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 05:53 PM   #57
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
I'm not one for conspiracies, but I don't know what to think of this and it freaks me out (although it's likely fake, it's a very good fake). For what the subject matter is, look at the video in my 'Election Fraud' thread.

BORKED
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 06:03 PM   #58
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
I'm not one for conspiracies, but I don't know what to think of this and it freaks me out (although it's likely fake, it's a very good fake). For what the subject matter is, look at the video in my 'Election Fraud' thread.

BORKED
Because nobody could ever, ever do a good Obama voice impersonation.

Whether such conversations are real or not, I very much doubt that such an audio recording is real. Whether the conspiracy is real or not, people are thoroughly checked before they're allowed to privately talk with the President. And if the conspiracy is real, then you can be especially certain that such conversations are not going to be taking place somewhere where a bugged recorder can operate. Or that he would casually discuss this with someone unless they were guaranteed not to rat him out.

Your #1 question should be why something like this has shown up on YouTube of all places and not first, say, international news outlets (including state media in rival nations), why it only has less than 2,000 views right now, etc. There's no fucking way (no offense ) that we would be among the first 2,000 people to discover this if it were real.

A fun little joke thing that conspiracy nuts will go crazy over for generations, but ultimately I doubt it's anything more.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 06:06 PM   #59
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
I know, I thought that too, I mostly just posted it here to get opinions (mainly yours) and I got it.

Last edited by deoxys; 03-07-2012 at 06:12 PM.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 11:34 AM   #60
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Obama to Arizona: Basically "Drop Dead"

Quote:
Before lawmakers could fully digest the court’s decision on Monday upholding the “show me your papers” provision of the law, the Obama administration announced that it was revoking agreements with Arizona police over the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Quote:
The Department of Homeland Security announced later Monday that it was revoking its so-called 287(g) agreements with Arizona law enforcement agencies — a partnership with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that gave local police the power to enforce immigration laws.
Quote:
[Gov. Jan Brewer] added. “And it’s almost become apparent that they can do whatever they darn well want! They don’t want to enforce their laws. They won’t let us help them enforce their laws.”
Obama to selectively enforce Immigration Laws
Quote:
Accordingly, he said, federal officials will not respond to the scene of state or local traffic stops or similar law enforcement encounters to enforce immigration laws unless the individual meets DHS enforcement priorities.
Quote:
The administration also said it is rescinding the so-called 287(g) agreements with the state of Arizona that allowed some local police departments to enforce federal immigration laws.
Quote:
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer responded to the end of the 287(g) agreements with an angry statement Monday.

"As though we needed any more evidence, President Obama has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement under the authority of which Arizona law enforcement officers have partnered with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law," the statement said.
Quote:
The Justice Department announced it has set up a telephone hotline and e-mail address for the public to report potential civil rights concerns related to the implementation of the Arizona SB 1070 provision requiring immigration status verification during certain law enforcement encounters. The hotline number is 855-353-1010 and the e-mail address is [email protected].
What are the ramifications?

Last edited by unownmew; 06-26-2012 at 11:38 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 04:15 PM   #61
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Fast And Furious Scandal

-2006: President Bush approves Operation "Wide Receiver."

-2007: President Bush ends Operation "Wide Receiver" in failure.

-2009: Operation Fast and Furious is started, under President Obama's Administration

-March 27, 2011: President Obama tells Univision, a Spanish language network, that neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder knew of or approved Fast and Furious.

-Oct. 3, 2011: CBS News reports on Justice Department memos to Holder mentioning Fast and Furious as early as July 2010.

-Oct. 7, 2011: Holder sends a letter to Congress explaining that he never saw the memos mentioning Fast and Furious, and that top Justice Department officials who were briefed on the case didn't know about the controversial "gunwalking" tactics being used.

-Nov. 8, 2011: Attorney General Holder testifies at Senate Judiciary hearing and admits to Congress for the first time that gunwalking happened in Fast and Furious. He also tells Senators that his agency's initial letter to Congress denying gunwalking last February was "inaccurate."

-December 7, 2011: Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

-June 19, 2012: Attorney General Eric Holder asks President Obama to exert executive privilege over documents pertaining to the Justice Department’s botched “Fast and Furious” gun running operation.

-June 20, 2012: President Obama Grants Eric Holder's request.

-June 20, 2012: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform recommends that the House of Representatives hold Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress for failing to provide documents subpoenaed by congress regarding Fast and Furious.


Problem: Executive Privilege can Only be exerted if the documents directly affect the White House. What are they hiding?


Details: Wide Receiver

-Ran 2006-2007 Bush Administration
-Mexican Authorities were notified and engaged with the operation
-RFID chips and aerial surveillance were used to track guns sold
-400 Guns lost


Details: Fast and Furious

-Started in 2009 Obama Administration
-Mexican authorities left in the dark about the program
-Guns were Not tracked
-2000 guns walked; 1400 lost, 700 found at crime scenes or in Mexico



Holder: Need to "brainwash people about guns"


Very suspicious....
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 05:38 PM   #62
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
You know what, um, I agree on one point. I think that the anti-smoking propaganda is too much and would hate for that to even start happening to guns. Although, of course, in some ways, it has. That is, unfortunate.
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 02:17 AM   #63
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
There can never be too much propaganda about something that harms not just you but everyone around you, literally, and has absolutely and utterly zero positive effects outside of a brief relaxation.

I do agree with the guns thing though. That's something that's going to be available in the black market if shutting them down is the only thing the police force ever does. Much simpler to simply keep it as it is.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 03:30 AM   #64
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
There can never be too much propaganda about something that harms not just you but everyone around you, literally, and has absolutely and utterly zero positive effects outside of a brief relaxation.
+1

Though on guns, I do believe that if you gave everyone a gun, you'd be less inclined to rob/rape/whatever them, since they could retaliate quite easily. And you might end up dead, which would suck.

So yeah, there's my two cents in debate for... a while.
__________________
phoopes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 03:51 AM   #65
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Actually, it is impossible to shoot someone if they charge at you with a knife at eighteen feet or less. And that is with prior warning.

Guns are not foolproof.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 03:54 AM   #66
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
Actually, it is impossible to shoot someone if they charge at you with a knife at eighteen feet or less. And that is with prior warning.

Guns are not foolproof.
Blunt force is probably more incapacitating than sharp force. You don't need to pull a trigger for a gun to be a weapon ;)

And also, you mean impossible for the average layman.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.