| reply to bbenso1
Re: A few million Euros (Francs) Later What about the couple that has a wifi network that they fail to secure. They had the ISP stick it in, and they did a half assed job. So now everyone in their vicinity steals their connection and pirates off of it. You know what I mean. Anyone with a laptop has gone to an area and most likely found SEVERAL UNSECURED connections. Should this couple be banned for life. Sure, it's their job to lock down their network. Ignorance is no excuse. But does this justified BANNING them for life? |
|
|
|
 DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
2 edits | reply to jc100
... |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:Well clearly you are unaware of the FACT that the ice caps are growing is other parts (one part melts and another grows) in fact the growing part is growing faster than the melting part is melting Sorry, Ice levels are melting everywhere worldwide. Greenland, Antarctica, Northern Ice pack, Glaciers worldwide. Everywhere.
The only issue is how much of the melt is related to man.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:You fail to grasp the scale of the planet (and Plants kinda need CO2 to live) You sir fail to grasp that the planet, while quite large is basically a closed system; and there are billions of us and growing all the time, and more and more of us are burning fossil fuels each year as previously "less developed" areas gain more modern technology and machines.
While the variables are indeed many, the simple fact is there is always a cause and effect. While many scoff at the idea of Man-made climate change, I have to say it makes a lot of sense to everyone but the fanatics.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
| reply to DarkLogix
RLH,
A volcanic eruption can THROW OFF THE CLIMATE for months. Look at major eruptions in history. You will have SEVERE changes in weather. SO your analogy just goes to show that AN EVENT can has catastrophic consequences. Man is that event right now. Our actions are single handedly screwing up this planet. We are polluting, cutting down trees (remove carbon from the air), and causing species to go extinct in record numbers.
As for mars. Well no dude, things take time. It's like an oven, it doesn't reach full heat the second you turn it on. It takes quite a while to heat up. Mars has probably been warming nonstop for years. It just is a gradual process considering the surface area that has to get hot. No ozone layer means its not protected. It however doesn't mean that it just HAPPENS instantly. See above rationale. |
|
| reply to jc100
exactly, the MAFIAA hasn't paid up yet. the EU can't find/make up a reason to sue them (just look at the intel and microsoft cases, gotta fund their (EU) activities somehow. once the MAFIAA ponies up the dough, things will start changing quickly.
hopefully it won't come to this.
oh yeah, i'd LOVE to see how the Pirate Party and The Pirate Bay are reacting to this 3 strikes crap. |
|
| Not in sweden just yet. In due time I imagine. Just takes enough money and will power to buy your legislation and get it passed. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to DarkLogix
RLH_115
I do hold several degrees in science and would like a link to these substantial parts that are growing(freezing). It is possible in all this that I have missed some information. |
|
| reply to jc100
Fine, here is an article from TIME magazine:
»www.time.com/time/magazine/artic···,00.html
quote:
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.
Sound familiar? Yep, it is the same rhetoric used for the so called "global warming" argument and that is just the first paragraph.
Now look at the second paragraph:
quote:
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
The title of the article was "Another Ice Age?" At the time, we still used leaded gas, we had pollution way beyond what we have now and Los Angeles was always clouded in smog.
The beginning of the third paragraph really is telling:
quote:
Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.
Whoa, more ice in Iceland and we are looking at another Ice Age? Fire up the furnace.
This paragraph is quite amusing:
quote:
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
Which is it? Are we responsible for cooling or warming?
Face it, withing the span of 40 years we went from fearing another Ice Age to a planet warming up to fry us all.
There is not enough data to support either side right now and this planet is a lot more resilient than you care to think. |
|
| An article from 35 years ago to prove a point? Really? See, that's like taking the argument the world's flat from science in the 16th century and arguing against modern day science. Things change. People are wrong. Yes. However, we have MUCH BETTER TECHNOLOGY now than in 1974. It's called computers, which were rudimentary in those days. We have satellites monitoring the ice receding. We have time lines to show that patterns are changing. Is everything man made? Probably not. Are we a big contributing factor. I imagine so. Your argument is the biggest cock and bull story. 35 year old article to refute things.. Moon.... You've made my day with the laugh factor. |
|
| said by jc100:An article from 35 years ago to prove a point? Really? See, that's like taking the argument the world's flat from science in the 16th century and arguing against modern day science. Things change. People are wrong. Yes. However, we have MUCH BETTER TECHNOLOGY now than in 1974. It's called computers, which were rudimentary in those days. We have satellites monitoring the ice receding. We have time lines to show that patterns are changing. Is everything man made? Probably not. Are we a big contributing factor. I imagine so. Your argument is the biggest cock and bull story. 35 year old article to refute things.. Moon.... You've made my day with the laugh factor. Oh really? What about the global warming alarmists that say our planet has been warming since the beginning of the 20th century? How can we have warming and cooling within a small time span?
Face it, we have heard all these arguments before and each time they predict another version of doom and gloom with more junk science. You can have all the computer models in the world but none work without some sort of prior data and the data is still all over the place.
Laugh it up. It is you who will pay the new carbon tax based on fear mongering. |
|
| Easily. How come the World was flat in one century and round in another. Science progresses, and the technology to assess situations does too. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory.
Species are going extinct at a faster rate than any time in history
We are polluting Rivers, Cutting down Forests (Which reduce carbon dioxides), and harming are air at record rates.
Smog didn't exist prior to us being in Mexico City and L.A. Man caused it.
Forests existed before we CHOPPED LARGE TRACTS of them down
If you for once think that what we do has no effect on this planet, you're naive. It's like Lead, DDT, and other substances we have created. They are harmful to man. Just as what we pump into the air is harmful. However, it's not just hurting us, but the planet. Nice try. Science progresses and a 35 year old article by you is a hysterical joke with a multitude of laugh factors. |
|
| said by jc100:Easily. How come the World was flat in one century and round in another. Science progresses, and the technology to assess situations does too. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. Species are going extinct at a faster rate than any time in history We are polluting Rivers, Cutting down Forests (Which reduce carbon dioxides), and harming are air at record rates. Smog didn't exist prior to us being in Mexico City and L.A. Man caused it. Forests existed before we CHOPPED LARGE TRACTS of them down If you for once think that what we do has no effect on this planet, you're naive. It's like Lead, DDT, and other substances we have created. They are harmful to man. Just as what we pump into the air is harmful. However, it's not just hurting us, but the planet. Nice try. Science progresses and a 35 year old article by you is a hysterical joke with a multitude of laugh factors. Wow, lots of conjecture and assumptions there.
Actually, the Greeks knew the world was round back when Oenopides did his calculations (around 450BC) which were later refined by Eratosthenes.
How do we know species are dying faster than at any time before? I would imagine that the meteor that hit off the Yucatan coast would have caused a lot of damage.
Weather has been recorded for a while but if all you are going to look at just the last 100 years, that is barely one letter in the book of this planet's history. Have humans caused issues. Definately but not to the point the alarmist are claiming. And why did Al Gore try to get Ted Koppel to "witch hunt" any scientist who did not agree with his global warming message?
The global warming science is not passing the sniff test and many are trying to find a way out without damaging their reputation.
Try again. |
|
| Science is a study of patterns. How do we know something is happening? We compare changes of Glaciers from Photos 100 years ago to now.
What Photos Show:
Glaciers have receded by 10s of miles. Antarctica and Ice filled regions are Melting Rapidly.
What Science Shows:
Amount of Carbons and Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere have increased substantially in the time we have measured. Cars didn't exist (nor did Smog in L.A. or Mexico City) before Man built them. Factories weren't pumping TONS OF Pollutants into the air before the industrial Revolution. Now we are. So you tell me Moon.
2+2 = 4
Cars = Cause Smog
Deforestation = Less Trees to Purify the air
Factories = Pollute the Air with Chemicals that make people sick. Hell look at Chernobyl in Russia. Mind moving there? Sure that radiation will be good on the body?
Polluting Rivers with industrial waste.
Man's activities have consequences. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Cutting down an Animals Habitat leads its numbers to disappear. Polluting water ways Kills off species. Pumping Shit into the air via cars and factories causes smog and raises Ozone levels which can cause breathing problems. So If on a small scale, we can see that happening, then I'd venture to guess our actions have a wider consequence. You can cite whatever you want. A 35 year old article is not proof of anything. ONE PERSON IN THAT ARTICLE GOT IT WRONG. It wasn't as if the scientific community all said we were in for a New Ice Age. Plus, empirical data and computers weren't around to create models and analyze large sets of data.
Believe what you wish. It's like trying to convince a religious person his or her religion is just one of many. We can go at this all day and it's pointless. |
|
| reply to moonpuppy
Such a myopic view. Thank god you aren't a man of science because you certainly lack any logic needed to form a coherent opinion. |
|
| reply to moonpuppy
Don't even take what I said out of context. I meant modern record that was verifiable. Now, we can use carbon dating and other such tests to check weather. However, in this case I was referring to the practice of written record. I don't know if I trust what the Roman's did in 450B.C as historical fact. People take the bible as Historical Fact and we see how many variations and takes there are on religion itself. Let's just say I'd prefer the modern, educated record keeping practices. See how in 450 B.C. sea monsters and the world was flat. While SOME OF THEIR SCIENCE has stood the test of time, there were far more errors than successes. The difference? We have technology to test our work, versus say, best guess practices.
Though for Pre Modern Times, Pythagorean and others did figure out some complex stuff. Once again, not all wrong, but a lot.
There lies the difference. Our science is based off computer models, satellite data, historical photographs, carbon dating / weather patterns. Their data was a best guestimate if you wish to call it that. |
|
| said by jc100:Don't even take what I said out of context. I meant modern record that was verifiable. Now, we can use carbon dating and other such tests to check weather. However, in this case I was referring to the practice of written record. I don't know if I trust what the Roman's did in 450B.C as historical fact. People take the bible as Historical Fact and we see how many variations and takes there are on religion itself. Let's just say I'd prefer the modern, educated record keeping practices. See how in 450 B.C. sea monsters and the world was flat. While SOME OF THEIR SCIENCE has stood the test of time, there were far more errors than successes. The difference? We have technology to test our work, versus say, best guess practices.
Sorry, but taking weather patterns only for the last 100 years is by no means accurate since patterns take MUCH longer to manifest themselves. The Ice Age was millions of years ago yet we know this through geology because man was not around to record it. The Romans were known for their record keeping. However, even their period was too short to record much data plus it was only for their little area. said by jc100:Though for Pre Modern Times, Pythagorean and others did figure out some complex stuff. Once again, not all wrong, but a lot. There lies the difference. Our science is based off computer models, satellite data, historical photographs, carbon dating / weather patterns. Their data was a best guestimate if you wish to call it that. Again, if the formulas behind the models are off, so is the data and our sat data is barely 50 years old. That is not enough data. Even the sunspot cycle takes 13 years. You want to limit your data to barely 100 years, be my guest but my logical people would laugh at you and dismiss ANYTHING you said about the subject. Try again. |
|
1 edit | A) We are NOT SIMPLY COMPARING WEATHER PATTERNS FROM 100 Years
- Looking at Written Data From 100 years that we can Verify
- Using Science to dig further Back where records cannot be proven without doubt
- Using Photographs / Satellite Imagery etc to Supplement.
Contrary to your Stance, Rocks, Trees, fossils all hold evidence of growth and change over the millenias. We can compare this to records to paint a picture.
B) Chopping down Animals Habitat means less places for them to live and less trees to take carbon dioxide out of the air. Basic Science. Trees take Carbon and turn it into Oxygen. less Trees, Less Carbon "Filters". More species extinct as less habtitat to live.
No trying again on my part. |
|
| said by jc100:A) We are NOT SIMPLY COMPARING WEATHER PATTERNS FROM 100 Years - Looking at Written Data From 100 years that we can Verify - Using Science to dig further Back where records cannot be proven without doubt - Using Photographs / Satellite Imagery etc to Supplement. Contrary to your Stance, Rocks, Trees, fossils all hold evidence of growth and change over the millenias. We can compare this to records to paint a picture. B) Chopping down Animals Habitat means less places for them to live and less trees to take carbon dioxide out of the air. Basic Science. Trees take Carbon and turn it into Oxygen. less Trees, Less Carbon "Filters". More species extinct as less habtitat to live. No trying again on my part. First only the last 100 years of data is reliable then you bring in other stuff.
The key to winning a debate is to take one side and hold it, not flip flop like John Kerry.
 |
|
1 edit | Flip Flopping? You're the one trying to do that. I've picked a side and substantiated it FAR BETTER than a 35 year old article by ONE SOURCE.
Empirical data (Look up the word)..
100 years of weather Data is Reliable. That's about as far back as the weather service goes BY HUMAN RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. Not including Photographs. Thats about 150-170 years.
From there you can use Carbon Data, Growth Patterns on Trees, Rock Formations, etc to tell RELIABLY HOW THINGS OCCURRED. IE... Where the Written Proof ends, Nature provides documentation.
Also, Photographs, Satellites, etc aid too in comparing pictorial evidence.
Basic Science bud. You get an "F". Trees = Animal Habitat. Trees = Turn Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.
Fewer Trees (Deforestation) = Less "Air Filters for Pollution" and less animal habitat.
No conjecture. Simple, plain facts. Flip Flop? Nope. Reasonable? Far more than your ONE 35 year old article. |
|
