Germany Refuses To Implement 'Three Strikes' Law > A few million Euros (Francs) Later

reply to jc100

Re: A few million Euros (Francs) Later

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You just don't get it do you?

Its called building the big picture. You take all your data, compile it, to create a layout of the environmental changes that have taken place.

You might want to look up the word Theoretical. Its too big for you to use. Obviously, you don't know the meaning. When something is theory, it's not fact. Trees without a doubt show the climate changes that have occurred over millennium. Soil samples show the different layers that have formed and the climate at that time. Rock Formations and Geology show fossilization and what took place. None of that is theory.

Then again, I'm talking to the Kentucky's Creation Museums #1 visitor. The man who probably believes earth is 10,000 years old and we roamed it with dinosaurs.

Failing is something you do bud. Not me. Science looks at the big picture, not a narrow one tracked view based on a 35 year old article. Not everyone is right or uses a practical approach. Technology, however has improved. We can compare pictures over the last 170 years. We can compare weather data over the last 100. And to go further back, we use soil, rock, geological, and carbon dating. All of which gives evidence of whats happened.

Your evidence, an article. Failing. You give that word a new perspective and a whole new meaning. Obviously, you couldn't pass first grade science.

Trees WITHOUT A DOUBT REMOVE CARBON DIOXIDE. We are deforesting the planet. Animals live in Forests. We chop them down, species disappear. Less trees, less things to purify our air. More factories, cars, and pollution with less trees, = more sticks around.

This isn't rocket science. Then again, I'm trying to convince someone who couldn't get passed high school and believes wikipedia is a source the fundamentals of life. AH yes, this is a big challenge to say the least.

quote:

---

During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.

The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.

The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years — evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.

---

quote:

---

About 325,000 years ago, at the peak of a warm interglacial, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.

---

Big picture with barely 100 years of data? Yeah, that makes sence

You don't make "Sense". No one claimed 100 years of data. I said 100 years of weather data that is written down. THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE CANNOT USE SCIENCE TO ANALYZE DATA PRIOR TO SUCH RECORDINGS. Does stupid come with a tshirt? I'll buy you a few.

- Carbon Dating
- Geological Surveys
- Pictorial Comparisons
- Environmental Surveys
- Fossil Patterns / Life

All show o lets say 100s of millions of years. So Written Data is one thing. I know a man of your lack of intelligence probably is religious. You believe that fictional work called the bible right? Why, cause it's written down so it has to be right. Prove to me Jesus existed? Were you there? I want proof. O wait, you can't. Damn. Yet, your church have you believe he was real with "loads of evidence". Funny... You take their word but oddly enough, come science, it's all magical hokey pokey ay?

I give up. Your "BLOG" of "Blogs" has won me out. I mean some wackjobs writings just overpower me with evidence. All bow to the might conspiracy theory blogs. O and he claims 150 scientist agree. Wow... The church claims to have scholars on religion. Funny enough, for bright minds, I'm wondering why the world has like 1000s of different beliefs. Seems if these scholars were any damn good, theyd have convinced the world that their religion is right. O snap, that's right. This same church has you believing the world is 10,000 years old and we walked with Dinosaurs.

Non Conjecture = Trees Take Carbon Dioxide from the air and turn to Oxygen. That's FACT. That's Proven. 100 percent of scientists agree on it.

Fact #2 = Cutting down trees lessens the numbers of forests. IE causes species to disappear. If I bulldoze your house, you are homeless. If you cut down a forest, animals have less space to live. Not to mention See Fact 1 which is universally agreed upon. Trees are the world's air purifiers. You cut a tree in half, and it's rings show growth patterns and weather change. Trees filter out carbon dioxide.

O wow, the mighty Graph. Part of the Global Warming theory smart one is that SOME AREAS OF THE EARTH WILL ACTUALLY GET COOLER while others heat up. The Poles are melting and ocean temperatures rising. However, just like any other weather, changes are going to fluxuate. I guess you've never heard of a nuclear winter. Yea Hokus Pokus Ay? I guess a Volcano Erupting has no effect on Climate either. All conjecture. Changes have no cause and effect. Got any tin foil?

Um you're guy is a blogger. Ya, his credentials speak wonders. The Mighty Blogger. Once again. yes, the Earth has seen MANY CHANGES. NO FUCKING SHIT. The earth has also seen many species come extinct. Keep believing our actions have no effect on the planet.

Increased pollution doesn't increase cancer rates.

Drugs do no harm on people. They're just sugar pills.

Radiation is good for the Human Body. The Atomic Bomb did nothing to cause Birth Defects and Malformations.

Our actions are TOTALLY WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.

No game set Match. Might try reserving that for when you're brain has five minutes to FIND A TEE TO PUT FROM. Right now, you're smacking air and tossing your clubs.

Repeating the same BS with nothing to back it up.

You have nothing.

But, I have more:

»www.earthtimes.org/articles/show···95.shtml

quote:

---

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."

---

Well let's see. You don't offer but a 35 year old article, A Blogger, and Conjecture.

I at least give you known facts of life. Go verify them yourself.

Here's something you might understand in stupid people lingo. Take A Box. Go stick a Cigarette in it. Put the lid on. What happens? Box fills with smoke. Now add a fan to that box, what happens? Smoke still says in the box, but blows around. Now, add some napkins in there and blow in another cigarette (Filter). What happens? Less smoke enters the box?

See stupid people experiment tailored towards you? Lesson here. Earth = Box. We're a Closed system. What happens here stays here. Our Pollution does not disperse. Our Ozone layer which protects us also acts as a shield encasing the shit we pump into this planet. Trees are natures way of sorting that out. We chop them down, there goes the filters.

People like you have us believe we can dump toxic waste into a river.. It does Nothing.

We can chop down a Forest, Consequence free.

We can use tons of radiation, as hell, it doesnt hurt anyone.

Here's the difference. All this is known to be inaccurate.

Hiroshima led to MASSIVE AMOUNTS of Birth Defects in People. Chemicals we create have IMMEDIATE and long lasting effects on ourselves. Common sense says they effect other things too.

Ah yes... Logic to stupidity. Checkmate.

Um.. No what I posted are not opinions. Five minutes of your time can verify that what I posted is actually a legitimate experiment used in classrooms and done as a science fair. Strange huh. People actually focus on science to prove things rather than hokus pokus. As per the Magazine, it was done 35 years ago and it's not like there was a universal consensus. It was the opinion of some, but definitely NOT a majority. There by, people write articles all the time. Hell, scholars in the Church seem to Claim they can prove Jesus is God. Good luck on that. People can write and claim anything they want. Doesn't mean it's true. What is needed is evidence. We seem to have plenty (see above) to at least substantiate we're at least partially to blame for what's occurring. In this case, a MAJORITY of scientists do agree. Unlike your 35 year old article which didn't even have a MINORITY consensus.

There by, the evidence can be found in what I listed above. Is it full proof? Nothing is absolutely fool proof. However, is it more likely than not when combining ALL THE "Evidence" Together we're a factor in this change. So Yes and as I stated above in Layman's terms (so you'd understand), we have MANY TOOLS to assess what's going on. When all adds up to a conclusion, odds are it's more likely right than wrong. Some things are definitive. The world is round. Some things are HIGHLY LIKELY (Global Warming is taking place and Man has SOME IF NOT A GOOD DEAL to do with it).

As with the project I listed to you. Think of Earth as a Glass Ball. Things trapped in a glass ball do not leave. IE, Light a cigarette in that ball, the smoke stays. Add outside stimulus, and reactions occur. In this case, shine a Heat Lamp into that smoke filled ball, and now you have more than air reacting with heat. So on So forth.

More or less, while I believe the earth DOES GO THROUGH NATURAL ROTATIONS, Evidence suggests our activities are at least moderately or substantially to blame for causing this process to happen more rapidly.

In Summation, believe what you want. You can argue with me until you are blue in the face, but your lack of any actual scientific awareness will lead you to proving nothing. A First grader can elaborate the concepts I've posed to you. I don't see why you can't grasp them. Maybe you just weren't good at the topic. I can tell. Long story short, I'm not going to rehash things. You can read back through this and sort out the simple fundamentals yourself, and combine that with a little googling. It'll do you some good.