Firearms & co... hate or love them?
- Thread starter Tony Manero
- Start date
I still contend we\'re worried about the wrong stuff...
Global warming \"might\" be happening...
But it\'s moot,
Statisticians say there\'s a 1 in 5000 chance of of us getting hit by an asteroid in the next 100 years.
Which appears to be about the same chance that a person has of injuring himself with a Chainsaw.
Which is odd...because I *know* three people who have injured themselves with chainsaws. Considering I\'ve been alive for 40 years...chances are by the time I\'m 80---I\'ll know someone that was injured by an asteroid.
That is to say, if I live until I\'m 80---
Considering that my chances of dying from heart disease (1 in 3), or getting cancer (1 in 2) are more certain than my chances of getting the flu this year (1 in 10).
It\'s staggering to me that roughly 33% of the current population of the Earth will ultimately die from heart disease.
How many folks is global warming certain to kill in the next 78 years (not a rhetorical question--I would really like to know)?
Here\'s some funny little statistics for you--to help put things in perspective. Obviously, some of the data is old/inaccurate---but since we\'re all so hell-bent on stats.
http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm
Global warming \"might\" be happening...
But it\'s moot,
Statisticians say there\'s a 1 in 5000 chance of of us getting hit by an asteroid in the next 100 years.
Which appears to be about the same chance that a person has of injuring himself with a Chainsaw.
Which is odd...because I *know* three people who have injured themselves with chainsaws. Considering I\'ve been alive for 40 years...chances are by the time I\'m 80---I\'ll know someone that was injured by an asteroid.
That is to say, if I live until I\'m 80---
Considering that my chances of dying from heart disease (1 in 3), or getting cancer (1 in 2) are more certain than my chances of getting the flu this year (1 in 10).
It\'s staggering to me that roughly 33% of the current population of the Earth will ultimately die from heart disease.
How many folks is global warming certain to kill in the next 78 years (not a rhetorical question--I would really like to know)?
Here\'s some funny little statistics for you--to help put things in perspective. Obviously, some of the data is old/inaccurate---but since we\'re all so hell-bent on stats.
http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm
vincegamer
Active member
vincegamer
Active member
Actually much less. Maybe 33% of the human population I could believe. Global warming threatens much more than humans.
Highbulp Billy
New member
Do you mean our alien visitors ???
lol
philologus
Subgenius
I already read it as soon as it was posted at the UN website (I had been waiting with bated breath). As I stated in an earlier post, the IPCC \"report\" is a summary with little data or findings attached. The release of the summary is being heralded by the media (and Al Gore), I would wager that the actual report (whenever it\'s published) will garner far less media/political attention.
vincegamer
Active member
I just didn\'t want us lawyers to be left out.:moon:
M. D. Van Norman
New member
Clearly, both the manufacture of firearms and miniatures (and paint) contribute to global warming. We had better give up our guns and our toy soldiers. Think globally, act locally, and all that.
philologus
Subgenius
Just as an aside. The publishing method used by the IPCC 4AR has remained the same as 3AR. It goes like this:
1. Recruit the best scientists from Botswana, Mauritius, Trinidad etc.
2. Fly them around to endless meetings for each work group. How much jet fuel emmissions are generated by just the IPCC junkets? Greenhouse gases anyone? (Take a look at the list of meeting locations on the IPCC website, I wish I was the leading entomologist from Gabon so I could take vacations like this on the UN dime).
3. Compile and publish a summary reviewed by members of the IPCC
4. Disregard/defame credible scientists who have opposing views (There are more than 2 views on this issue BTW)
5. Alert media and be wined and dined, followed by breathless testimony to the Congress. (Dr. Susan Solomon, co-chair of WG1)
6. Repeat when media/political swell dies down.
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
Sorry for the late reply.
@philologous:
(old post) UN science? do you care to elaborate? It\'s not like the IPCC report is the only thing written in the area.
Leftish ideologies driven by emotion? It\'s fun how the same arguments come up in different places. And I liked how you interpreted my response as an emotional one when instead it was just made to provoke you.
So right wing ideology is based on rational thought and left-wing on emotion. That\'s funny... in many ways. How would you say that that green-house effect has been greeted by rightwingers like you? Have it been disregarded because of a) emotional non-rational argumentation. or b) careful assessment of the relevant scientific data.
(last post) who are all these credible scientists? There is a difference of viewpoints among scientists but in the broad picture the consensus is pretty staggering. How large the effect will be and what to do about it is another question. And here the politics come into the arena guns blazing.
@Evil dave and others: Don\'t go relativist on me! What we are trying to find is relevant factors for scientists writing what they do. Would you say that swedish, norwegian, australian researchers funded by their respective government are biased in the same way as with scientist getting grants from oil-companies? If you can\'t give a proper link of what ties them together your structural analysis just turns to paranoia and is basically useless.
Like those that see the global warming as an attack of capitalism and free market and a way of socialist politicians to exert governmental control over free individuals in society.
If you want to go into a discussion on the merits of an constructivist viewpoint of science I\'m game! But the moment it turns to relativism very few people are able to take the concequence of what they say. Most often the relativist argumentation is instead used on their opponents arguments to hide the weakness of their own.
Now can you give the missing link? Why is your oil drenched research better then my caring-for-other-peoples feelings research? Or maybe they are the same? Now how can you then have such a strong opinion on the subject if you have no data or empirical findings that support it? Now what you could say is \"I don\'t know..\" Because from the philosphical hampsterwheel you\'ve just leaped onto there isn\'t much more to collect.
Let\'s take one example of comparing articles and data. You gave a link to this article http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
And claimed that it had some scientific bearing what so ever. The problem you said was that scientists haven\'t accounted for the largest greenhouse gas namely Water Vapour.
OKay this is two responses to the idea by Gavin Scmidth from Realclimate.com
Click here and here
The second one is fun, because it has a reference to your article under \"who may in turn have picked up his (junk)science from here\"
Okay you\'ve read through the articles?
Now who\'s saying what?
Gavin Schmidt
Now let\'s look at your article:
It is written by Monte Hieb who has actually worked for coalmining companies as a chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety.
And who does he cite as sources? Well...
Patrick J. Michaels
Richard S. Lindzen
Tim patterson as a member of Friends of Science
You claim to assess this topic rationally and instead you just quote \"junk science\" (not my words) an article written by someone working for a mining and coal company citing works from people at least partlu funded by oilcompanies. Why is that? Maybe you are driven by... I don\'t know.. emotion? Well so am I, so you\'re in great company :innocent: But emotion does not rule out rational thought.. all good argumentations/discussions are based on Pathos, logos and ethos.
@philologous:
(old post) UN science? do you care to elaborate? It\'s not like the IPCC report is the only thing written in the area.
Leftish ideologies driven by emotion? It\'s fun how the same arguments come up in different places. And I liked how you interpreted my response as an emotional one when instead it was just made to provoke you.
So right wing ideology is based on rational thought and left-wing on emotion. That\'s funny... in many ways. How would you say that that green-house effect has been greeted by rightwingers like you? Have it been disregarded because of a) emotional non-rational argumentation. or b) careful assessment of the relevant scientific data.
(last post) who are all these credible scientists? There is a difference of viewpoints among scientists but in the broad picture the consensus is pretty staggering. How large the effect will be and what to do about it is another question. And here the politics come into the arena guns blazing.
@Evil dave and others: Don\'t go relativist on me! What we are trying to find is relevant factors for scientists writing what they do. Would you say that swedish, norwegian, australian researchers funded by their respective government are biased in the same way as with scientist getting grants from oil-companies? If you can\'t give a proper link of what ties them together your structural analysis just turns to paranoia and is basically useless.
Like those that see the global warming as an attack of capitalism and free market and a way of socialist politicians to exert governmental control over free individuals in society.
If you want to go into a discussion on the merits of an constructivist viewpoint of science I\'m game! But the moment it turns to relativism very few people are able to take the concequence of what they say. Most often the relativist argumentation is instead used on their opponents arguments to hide the weakness of their own.
Now can you give the missing link? Why is your oil drenched research better then my caring-for-other-peoples feelings research? Or maybe they are the same? Now how can you then have such a strong opinion on the subject if you have no data or empirical findings that support it? Now what you could say is \"I don\'t know..\" Because from the philosphical hampsterwheel you\'ve just leaped onto there isn\'t much more to collect.
Let\'s take one example of comparing articles and data. You gave a link to this article http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
And claimed that it had some scientific bearing what so ever. The problem you said was that scientists haven\'t accounted for the largest greenhouse gas namely Water Vapour.
OKay this is two responses to the idea by Gavin Scmidth from Realclimate.com
Click here and here
The second one is fun, because it has a reference to your article under \"who may in turn have picked up his (junk)science from here\"
Okay you\'ve read through the articles?
Now who\'s saying what?
Gavin Schmidt
Now let\'s look at your article:
It is written by Monte Hieb who has actually worked for coalmining companies as a chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety.
And who does he cite as sources? Well...
Patrick J. Michaels
Richard S. Lindzen
Tim patterson as a member of Friends of Science
You claim to assess this topic rationally and instead you just quote \"junk science\" (not my words) an article written by someone working for a mining and coal company citing works from people at least partlu funded by oilcompanies. Why is that? Maybe you are driven by... I don\'t know.. emotion?
Well so am I, so you\'re in great company :innocent: But emotion does not rule out rational thought.. all good argumentations/discussions are based on Pathos, logos and ethos.Gilvan Blight
New member
Such rediculous arguments.
Of course Global Warming and other such threats to our existance are bunk!
The gods would not do such a thing that would rid the world of worshippers.
For we all know that gods cannot exist without those of us that worship them.
So fear not, as the worst we can expect is some strife and maybe a plague.
Of course Global Warming and other such threats to our existance are bunk!
The gods would not do such a thing that would rid the world of worshippers.
For we all know that gods cannot exist without those of us that worship them.
So fear not, as the worst we can expect is some strife and maybe a plague.
vincegamer
Active member
Unless my geography sucks (I am American after all) doesn\'t Sweden have a lot of coastline? Rising sea levels will put a crimp on the port towns.
It\'s all just bollocks really..
..isn\'t it?
The way the politicians have latched on to GW and interpreted it as a way to increase tax revenue ensures that few people will take it seriously in the long term.
Personally, I am seeking ways to increase my \'carbon footprint\' purely to p1ss off the tree huggers I am forced to work with:bouncy:
Sorry if that annoys anyone...*snigger*:innocent:
..isn\'t it?
The way the politicians have latched on to GW and interpreted it as a way to increase tax revenue ensures that few people will take it seriously in the long term.
Personally, I am seeking ways to increase my \'carbon footprint\' purely to p1ss off the tree huggers I am forced to work with
:bouncy:Sorry if that annoys anyone...*snigger*:innocent:
Hey! I\'m American and my Geography is stellar. I know a bunch of different types of rocks. Igneous Rocks, Sedimentary Rocks, etc.
Plus my Astronomy is very brushed up too. Like I know I am a Gemini, and my wife is a Libra.
So, before u start knocking the American learning thingy, maybe you ought to think twicee.
Highbulp Billy
New member
I don\'t believe in any of that \"star-sign nonsense\", but that\'s typical of us Librans
