UK to Ban Plasmas?

[MapleSyrup]

Dispute the "indisputable'

Here are a few challenges for the "indisputable fact" that glaciers are melting 9especially it being man-made):

http://www.junkscience.com/news2/singer37.html
http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/warrick.htm

And...

The idea that man will cause world-wide disaster by causingthe cimate to change has been sensationalized for over 100 years. Here's a 1975 article announcing the danger we are in.

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

 

[Johnd]

Here are a few challenges for the "indisputable fact" that glaciers are melting 9especially it being man-made):

http://www.junkscience.com/news2/singer37.html
http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/warrick.htm

These are the scientific reports upon which you based your opinions on glacier melting? Are you kidding???

 

[MapleSyrup]

Well, regulation is necessitated by lack of "volunteering", in any strata.

What do YOU do to volunteer energy conservation? I already mentioned I use fluorescent light bulbs. But why ban traditional light bulbs?

Actually, it delved into energy conservation because of just how much energy plasmas waste.
QUOTE]

So do YOU support banning plasmas?

Science is mostly based on "just theories." Talk to a couple of chemists or physicists...don't take my word for it. Ask them how much science is proven (via proofs).
QUOTE]

Than why was the debate over man-made global warming declared over? I teach science and I agree with you that they are mostly theories. Gee, doesn't living on a theory reqiure faith? Theory is NOT absolute knowledge.

Well, I'll have to admit that I've never seen 120 train cars of dishes or fans with a single destination. But I have seen many 120 train cars of coal with a single destination.
QUOTE]

Reread the post, they cary the resources to produce those goods, not the actual products themselves.

And do you NOT use those goods? If so, how else do you propose the shipment of the resources needed to make those products?

Thanks to pinting out how much more nelightened and smarter you are than me. Great guy you are.
QUOTE]

It is not only indisputable that the glaciers are melting, it is indisputable that they are melting on an historic scale. Like Al Gore? Of course. I try to like most people. People travelling to the Arctic? I've never spoken to any traveller that has gone cruising in Alaska with such an opinion. The scientific reports abound. Your simple fix of "Just let those who pay their own engergy bills use the enegery that's available" is hugely problematic. If you do not understand this already, I cannot simply explain it to you in this thread.
QUOTE]

You did not comment on the two articles (nor the third posted above). there ARE questions involving the scientific accuracy of the melting of the glaciers. My point was that by saying, "it's indisputable", you connote that nobody can question [your interpretation] of the glaciers that are melting.

I was having a conversation with a Quantum Physicist the other day...now that was enthralling, informative...and humbling.
QUOTE]

Quantum physics is super cool but it's all philosophy. So what did you talk about?

Some see only what they choose to see.
QUOTE]

Again, you're right and I'm blindly wrong. You humble man you.

 

[Johnd]

I teach science and I agree with you that they are mostly theories. Gee, doesn't living on a theory reqiure faith? Theory is NOT absolute knowledge.

Really? And you post scientific "sources" like junkscience? And you coin belabored theories "just theories?" I am surprised. I have never spoken to a physicist or chemist that called the crux of their life "just theories."

Only a fool believes in something else when a logical theory makes the most sense (using proofs when available, postulates and theorems when not) and nothing exists to contradict it, right?

Again, you're right and I'm blindly wrong. You humble man you.

Arghh. More ad hominems. I never wrote that, so please do not insult or patronize me. The seeing comment was more of a general comment...if it applies to you, so be it. If I direct a comment at you, trust me, there will be no mistaking it. I speak and write plainly. Good night.

 

[MapleSyrup]

Glaciers

These are the scientific reports upon which you based your opinions on glacier melting? Are you kidding???

Are they unscientific?

Glaciers do melt. And that's normal. Are they melting at a historic rate? That's debatable as the first article shows. And why are they melting? Because people in the UK are using plasma TVs? Because trains haul raw material? Because of CO2s?

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/kaser2004.pdf

(Don't fall asleep reading tis. It's science.)

Now what of the other links I've made? Am I kidding about those?

 

[MapleSyrup]

Really? And you post scientific "sources" like junkscience? And you coin belabored theories "just theories?" I am surprised. I have never spoken to a physicist or chemist that called the crux of their life "just theories."

Only a fool believes in something else when a logical theory makes the most sense (using proofs when available, postulates and theorems when not) and nothing exists to contradict it, right?



Arghh. More ad hominems. I never wrote that, so please do not insult or patronize me. The seeing comment was more of a general comment...if it applies to you, so be it. If I direct a comment at you, trust me, there will be no mistaking it. I speak and write plainly. Good night.

It did not apply at all to me? Did you reply to me and then make a statement that had nothing to do with me? Just before you wrote, "If you do not understand this already, I cannot simply explain it to you in this thread. " The subject of that sentence was was unmistakenly me. The subject of your next sentence, "Some see only what they choose to see." "some" is an implied subject and and usually applies to the sujbect already established which was me. But, you will always made it abundantly known that when you are directing the nature of your comment at me that you'll make it "unmistakely clear", then I guess I understand your writing style better.

Now, it was YOU who first wrote that science is base mostly on theories and now I'm under scrutany from you for agreeing with you?

Man-made global warming, due to the over use of energy IS, I repeat, IS contradicted by many, MANY scientists.

Here is a repost of one of my links.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

And just because something does not contradict, or rather, cannot be observed contradicting a scientific conclusion, does not mean it is not there. Further analysis and experiments may come up with those contradictions. That is why the debte is never over in science.

"Junkscience' IS scientifically based. Very biased, but so is the energy crisis hysteria. It's all about the money, yo. Taxes, taxes, taxes, which you seem to like to impose as a form of penalization.

 

[MapleSyrup]

Johnd

As of to date you have not:

1) Responded to my #58 post to answer the challenge I proposed to Robbie which you challenged me on. Remember, you imposed yourself into that question.

2) Anwsered if you volunteer any reduction in energy. This since you seem fine to impose a mandatory reduction in the form of regulation. (Post 63)

I'm sure this will build in time. I'm tired.

 

[Johnd]

Are they unscientific?

Glaciers do melt. And that's normal. Are they melting at a historic rate? That's debatable as the first article shows. And why are they melting? Because people in the UK are using plasma TVs? Because trains haul raw material? Because of CO2s?

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/kaser2004.pdf

(Don't fall asleep reading tis. It's science.)

Now what of the other links I've made? Am I kidding about those?

I can't believe that you are actually a science teacher.

Is it unscientific? Just because an opinion mentions some scientific fact does not science make. Without employing the scientific method, gathering all facts that are known, and using them to better or weaken a proposition....yes....unscientific it is then. The paper you tout as science is simply an opinion. And I have to tell you that? And you're a science teacher? I'm not trying to be rude, but this is clearly a go nowhere discussion. Life's too short. If you would like to engage in a serious discussion on this matter, please let me know.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Today I am a much better father, husband, friend, teacher, and loved one primarily because of chosing to follow God and to be religious.

I am willing to believe that you are a good person, but you are selling yourself short by thinking that your beliefs are the cause of this. It is much more probable that it is just your nature.
Religion (all religion, not just christianity) has done vastly more harm than good throughout history, and is still doing so.

 

[Johnd]

Derailed!?!

When I read this thread, I saw it first about two issues:

1) government control...perhaps overcontrol, or government acting stupidly...perhaps not.
2) energy conservation...this is precisely why the government has proffered possible legislation: plasmas can waste much energy.

I do not see how God and religion are involved in these two issues.

 

[Davemcc]

I do not see how God and religion are involved in these two issues.

Me neither. But I'm just a godless, heathen, heretic infidel. What do I know?

Well, I better get back to my drunken, drug induced, misogynistic sex orgy. Maybe later, I'll throw some babies off the roof or skin some cats alive. Oh, what a moral person I could be if G-buz would save me.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Derailed!?!

When I read this thread, I saw it first about two issues:

1) government control...perhaps overcontrol, or government acting stupidly...perhaps not.
2) energy conservation...this is precisely why the government has proffered possible legislation: plasmas can waste much energy.

I do not see how God and religion are involved in these two issues.

If you try to follow the convoluted logic of how a thread ends up where it does, you may go insane.
(Some of us treat the forum as a conversation, and follow the chain of associations wherever it may lead.)

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

What's with all this political nonsense?

HeHeHe

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

What's with all this political nonsense?

HeHeHe

Yeah, no kidding.
I hate politics. That's why I don't watch TV or news. I guess Football has some politics, but not this much!

When you bring politics and religion into discussion, it always turns into nasty arguments.

I'm glad I don't live in England. Sounds like a boring place without Plasma TVs.

 

[Audioholics]

Voted most useless and off-topic thread ever... I know some people like to hear themselves talk, but oh my.