REVscene Automotive Forum
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)
-   Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)
-   -   Anti-Obama DVD 'The Obama Deception' a web hit w/ 160,000 YouTube views (https://www.revscene.net/forums/568641-anti-obama-dvd-obama-deception-web-hit-w-160-000-youtube-views.html)

BNR32_Coupe 03-18-2009 07:21 PM
rsx and 5dime you two are one of the most ignorant people i've ever communicated with on a forum. i use the word ignorant because you two choose to ignore the facts that i've provided.

rsx, you proclaim victory on this little debate because i chose not to reply to 'checks and balances'. i got something to say regarding that, what checks and balances were there 500million years ago when there were no factories, deforestation, or vehicles? why do we find a choking amount of co2 hundreds of thousands of years ago in our glaciers?

you guys can keep thinking the way you want, i just hope you remember this thread 30 years later and feel stupid when you realize i was right

FiveDime 03-18-2009 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BNR32_Coupe (Post 6336510)
rsx and 5dime you two are one of the most ignorant people i've ever communicated with on a forum. i use the word ignorant because you two choose to ignore the facts that i've provided.

rsx, you proclaim victory on this little debate because i chose not to reply to 'checks and balances'. i got something to say regarding that, what checks and balances were there 500million years ago when there were no factories, deforestation, or vehicles? why do we find a choking amount of co2 hundreds of thousands of years ago in our glaciers?

you guys can keep thinking the way you want, i just hope you remember this thread 30 years later and feel stupid when you realize i was right

I can say the same exact thing about you... so where does that leave us?

antonito 03-18-2009 07:38 PM
Well, I see the video in the OP is getting the amount of discussion it deserves: none.

Carry on ;)

BNR32_Coupe 03-18-2009 07:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveDime (Post 6336519)
I can say the same exact thing about you... so where does that leave us?
It leaves me with facts and you with Al Gore, a politician trying to sell a book. 2012's coming soon eh?

RRxtar 03-18-2009 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BNR32_Coupe (Post 6336071)
co2 levels have dropped over the long term. check my graph, read it slowly and carefully.
hmm.. i think the problem is you might be looking at the wrong graph. i found this one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/g2mike/co2.jpg







what have we learned here? graphing is fun and looks professional and is instantly believable, regardless of the integrity of the information on it

the other thing I've learned is you are an increadibly self righteous yet uninformed and ignorant poster. the first thing you wrote in here was "omg, you're so going to get pwned!!11! yeehaw!!!" similar to the ICBC thread which you started the same way, and were proven wrong. the difference in this thread is no matter which side of the arguement you are on, there are not enough solid facts over a long enough period of time to prove either case. it is very dificult to look passed what humans have done to the earth in the last ~250 years and think that doesnt have an effect on things. we are consuming more than the earth can give us.

and PS, Brazil has the largest rain forest on the planet, and it also has one of the most unregulated logging industries with one of the fastest deforestation rates.

BNR32_Coupe 03-18-2009 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRxtar (Post 6336555)
hmm.. i think the problem is you might be looking at the wrong graph. i found this one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/g2mike/co2.jpg







what have we learned here? graphing is fun and looks professional and is instantly believable, regardless of the integrity of the information on it
oh okay, let's just go with our gut instinct then

btw my gut instinct is telling me that red line looks like the front of that motorcycle in your avatar

ienhz 03-18-2009 08:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRxtar (Post 6336555)
the other thing I've learned is you are an increadibly self righteous yet uninformed and ignorant poster. the first thing you wrote in here was "omg, you're so going to get pwned!!11! yeehaw!!!" similar to the ICBC thread which you started the same way, and were proven wrong. the difference in this thread is no matter which side of the arguement you are on, there are not enough solid facts over a long enough period of time to prove either case. it is very dificult to look passed what humans have done to the earth in the last ~250 years and think that doesnt have an effect on things. we are consuming more than the earth can give us.

and PS, Brazil has the largest rain forest on the planet, and it also has one of the most unregulated logging industries with one of the fastest deforestation rates.
Using logic isn't tolerated around these parts here, boy...

BNR32_Coupe 03-18-2009 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRxtar (Post 6336555)
hmm.. i think the problem is you might be looking at the wrong graph. i found this one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/g2mike/co2.jpg







what have we learned here? graphing is fun and looks professional and is instantly believable, regardless of the integrity of the information on it

the other thing I've learned is you are an increadibly self righteous yet uninformed and ignorant poster. the first thing you wrote in here was "omg, you're so going to get pwned!!11! yeehaw!!!" similar to the ICBC thread which you started the same way, and were proven wrong. the difference in this thread is no matter which side of the arguement you are on, there are not enough solid facts over a long enough period of time to prove either case. it is very dificult to look passed what humans have done to the earth in the last ~250 years and think that doesnt have an effect on things. we are consuming more than the earth can give us.

and PS, Brazil has the largest rain forest on the planet, and it also has one of the most unregulated logging industries with one of the fastest deforestation rates.
very good analysis. with that logic, we just don't know for certain that clear cutting rain forsests will cause global warming, as much as we don't know the facts in the graphs i provided. they are, after all, just a bunch of random numbers and value's plotted in an offset manner to provide biased perspectives, right?

RRxtar 03-18-2009 08:36 PM
we dont know for sure, but logic would dictate that destroy the things (trees) that give you what you need to live (oxygen), is a bad thing. no? and if its the general consensus that its a bad thing, shouldn't we try to mitigate said destruction?

The7even 03-18-2009 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BNR32_Coupe (Post 6335657)
Moron?! You ready to get owned?? Let's see what 5 mins on google gives me

Bible predicting end of world (using common sense interpretation):
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. " Matthew 24:14
The end shall come, pretty self explanatory

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)" Matthew 24:3-15
Basically saying when the end happens, go stand inside a church


"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." -- Jude 1 v 14-15
If you're a sinner (bible states we're all born sinners), you're going to be killed by God.


Mars: there's no evidence of life on mars. It doesn't even have an atmosphere, anything on its surface during daytime gets soaked with the suns deadly radiation. Anything on its surface during night undergoes temperatures of -60degrees. There may have been life on mars eons ago but definitely not now. You don't need to be a scientist to figure this one out.


Global Warming


http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e10...09_january.jpg

TOTAL SEA ICE:

1980 Southern Hemisphere = 4.7 million sq km
1980 Northern Hemisphere = 15.0 million sq km
Total = 19.7 million sq km

2009 Southern Hemisphere = 5.8 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 14.1 million sq km
Total = 19.9 million sq km

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...4.html?sub=new

Total sea ice is variable, some years in the past happen to have more ice than the present, however, it consistently remains nearly identical on average.

http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/robinson.gif

"You think SUVs are the cause of glaciers shrinking? … Don't believe what you hear out of Hollywood and Washington, D.C. … [C]limate history proves that Gore has the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and global warming backward. A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause the Earth to be warmer. Instead, a warmer Earth causes the higher carbon dioxide levels." Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut

They made a book for people who think it's real:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6Y-NXZmDcx...al_warming.jpg

"The global warming industry’s tactics already range from comical to reprehensible. As a result of a cooling atmosphere -- which thanks to the “global cooling” panic we began measuring in 1979 -- you are distracted with irrelevant surface temperatures. This is possibly because more than 90% of our surface thermometer network is in violation of rules for locating the instruments. For example, why are so many now on asphalt parking lots, black tar roofs, airport tarmacs, and even hanging directly above barbeque grills?"
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/reali...lcontinue.html

pour one out for me next time
http://www.tadbit.com/hosted_imgs/you_fail_044.jpg


No way am I going to let you get away with this fucking shit.

All you've done was tell me that the Bible predicts the end. Big fucking whoop. Everyone knows that.
No where in the Bible does it say that we will end in the year 2000.
Since you're too stupid to remember what you wrote I suggest you re-read what you said.

Again, the bible does not say shit about the year 2000. If anything you owned your self with your own bullshit.

Furthermore, we cannot claim to know that life on mars never existed.
Since your imagination is very limited I am obliged to tell you that life can exist in many forms. Bacterial and/ or otherwise. Life is life.
Does it exist now? I doubt it. Did it exist there before? Maybe.


As for Global Warming.. If you can really ignore the signs then I say to you Ignorance really is bliss. Regardless of what fucked up bullshit you may believe the proof contradicting you is out there increasing our sea levels and melting our frost novas, nigguh.

Here, allow me to educate you for a change.

MYTH: Recent cold winters and cool summers don’t feel like global warming to me.

FACT: While different pockets of the country have experienced some cold winters here and there, the overall trend is warmer winters around the globe.

Measurements show that over the last century the Earth’s climate has warmed overall, in all seasons, and in most regions. Climate skeptics mislead the public when they claim that the winter of 2003–2004 was the coldest ever in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single year of cold weather in one region of the globe is not an indication of a trend in the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.

BNR32_Coupe 03-18-2009 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRxtar (Post 6336643)
we dont know for sure, but logic would dictate that destroy the things (trees) that give you what you need to live (oxygen), is a bad thing. no? and if its the general consensus that its a bad thing, shouldn't we try to mitigate said destruction?
yes, it's definitely a bad thing!! I do wholeheartedly agree with that. what i'm trying to say in my past few posts, and i'm probably not communicating well enough, is that the scale at which this harms the environment is much smaller than what was predicted. the amount of influence human life has on our planet is such an insignificant figure that one could say it's the cost of living with our current technology.

obviously try not to do bad things to the planet. logic also dictates that co2 were at extreme levels in the past. why don't you care to elaborate on this, rather than make like the other 2 users and go off on your own facts? i addressed yours, now address mine.

BNR32_Coupe 03-18-2009 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The7even (Post 6336661)
No way am I going to let you get away with this fucking shit.

All you've done was tell me that the Bible predicts the end. Big fucking whoop. Everyone knows that.
No where in the Bible does it say that we will end in the year 2000.
Since you're too stupid to remember what you wrote I suggest you re-read what you said.

Again, the bible does not say shit about the year 2000. If anything you owned your self with your own bullshit.
I was referring to BS in the past that people claimed were going to happen. Educate yourself on that hoax with this link
http://www.greaterthings.com/Word-Number/Y2K/index.html
The end was predicted in year 2000 by the bible code so stfu, k next

Quote:
Furthermore, we cannot claim to know that life on mars never existed.
Since your imagination is very limited I am obliged to tell you that life can exist in many forms. Bacterial and/ or otherwise. Life is life.
Does it exist now? I doubt it. Did it exist there before? Maybe.
Anything's possible. Presently we don't have core evidence to believe that life IS sustainable on mars. Read what I wrote

Quote:
As for Global Warming.. If you can really ignore the signs then I say to you Ignorance really is bliss. Regardless of what fucked up bullshit you may believe the proof contradicting you is out there increasing our sea levels and melting our frost novas, nigguh.
I just showed you satellite pictures. (RRxstar: They're not graphs this time) Who's there to say that sea levels and ice levels don't fluctuate normally? Did you just call me a nigger? That violates RS terms of use

Quote:
Here, allow me to educate you for a change.

MYTH: Recent cold winters and cool summers don’t feel like global warming to me.

FACT: While different pockets of the country have experienced some cold winters here and there, the overall trend is warmer winters around the globe.

Measurements show that over the last century the Earth’s climate has warmed overall, in all seasons, and in most regions. Climate skeptics mislead the public when they claim that the winter of 2003–2004 was the coldest ever in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single year of cold weather in one region of the globe is not an indication of a trend in the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.
Thanks for this info. I will use this information and assume that the world doesn't undergo naturally occurring cooling/heating patterns, since there was no evidence of such events happening in the past [/scarcasm]

rsx 03-18-2009 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BNR32_Coupe (Post 6336510)
rsx and 5dime you two are one of the most ignorant people i've ever communicated with on a forum. i use the word ignorant because you two choose to ignore the facts that i've provided.

rsx, you proclaim victory on this little debate because i chose not to reply to 'checks and balances'. i got something to say regarding that, what checks and balances were there 500million years ago when there were no factories, deforestation, or vehicles? why do we find a choking amount of co2 hundreds of thousands of years ago in our glaciers?

you guys can keep thinking the way you want, i just hope you remember this thread 30 years later and feel stupid when you realize i was right
Wow, you get upset easily don't ya?

What you're saying is that (quote above) is that during ~500m years ago there were high levels of Co2 gases, without vehicles and man-made pollution, correct? I agree with you! It's clearly evident in trapped sample glacier cores. What I'm not buying is the fact that you equate Temperature and gas levels from 500 million years ago to Today's temperature and gas levels.

The only point I'm trying to get across is: Increasing human population+encroachment+habitat destruction+deforestation+industrialization+(to some extent cars)+extinction will have an effect on the environment.

PS. It's unfortunate, you got all spazzy and decide to mouth off and because of that I'm going to stop responding.

rsx 03-18-2009 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cspec (Post 6335907)
Pollution does have an effect. But not to the "OMFG WE NEED TO FIX EVERYTHING BEFORE WE GET BURNED TO DEATH BECAUSE THE EARTH IS HEATING UP" effect that many people imply.

It is also a fact that human power alone cannot change the earth's environment fluctuations noticeably within a few hundred years.

Like I mentioned in a previous post, during the Last Glacial Maximum, the world was basically covered in all glaciers. But BEFORE that, the world was a barren, dry land. With that said, there's was and has been HUGE change in temperature before "humans began terrorizing our environment."
Whoops, missed this one.

Global warming is a long-term problem that should not be left to future generations. The onus is on us. And I think we can and have been changing the environment (animal extinctions, deforestation, encroachment, etc). I'm not one to fear monger that impending doom is just around the bend, but if we can leave a more positive influence, why don't we? Shouldn't we strive to be better and not settle for mediocrity?

BNR32_Coupe 03-18-2009 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsx (Post 6336822)
Wow, you get upset easily don't ya?

What you're saying is that (quote above) is that during ~500m years ago there were high levels of Co2 gases, without vehicles and man-made pollution, correct? I agree with you! It's clearly evident in trapped sample glacier cores. What I'm not buying is the fact that you equate Temperature and gas levels from 500 million years ago to Today's temperature and gas levels.

The only point I'm trying to get across is: Increasing human population+encroachment+habitat destruction+deforestation+industrialization+(to some extent cars)+extinction will have an effect on the environment.

PS. It's unfortunate, you got all spazzy and decide to mouth off and because of that I'm going to stop responding.
Yes, it will have an effect like the sound of a bottle dropping at a night club. I equate temperature and gas levels... because... *facepalm*

FiveDime 03-18-2009 11:48 PM
its like 10v1 here... notice a trend?

maybe you should give your head a shake

Nightwalker 03-19-2009 12:14 AM
Climate change has always happened, will always happen. It has naturally been warmer and colder than current trends. In my opinion human impact is negligible in this aspect.

Obviously we should strive for efficiency and to use renewable resources, and not even for environmental reasons alone. But the global warming propaganda madness is pretty bullshit.

jeffh 03-19-2009 03:16 PM
i love discussions like this
for the record, it is still called "the theory of global warming" for a reason, its a theory and nothing has been proven to complete satisfaction of the scientific community, it would do everyone well to remember that

it would also do well to remember that the recorded change in temperature over the last century is a C-hair over 1 degree Farenheit

lets toss this out there for for fun, where is temperature recorded around the world? weather stations, is it fair to assume that temperature measuring equipment wasnt as sophisticated in 1902 as it is in 2009?
is it also fair to assume that maybe the records from 1902 arent as complete from around the entire globe as they would be today?

lets say we werent getting temperature information reliably from around the equator in 1902 simply due to the primitive nature of settlements around the equator? but we are receiving more information today as you can now use satelites to gather temperature data where it isnt practical to have a station?

maybe our entire 1 degree rise in temperature is based off better science and a more widespread sample?


maybe its not

fact of the matter is, there is NO way to know for sure
and any scientist that claims to know for certain is more interested in where their next paycheque is comming from than the actual science



and to stay OT Obama is about as much of a waste of flesh as carl Marx, and for all the same reasons

jeffh 03-19-2009 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveDime (Post 6337015)
its like 10v1 here... notice a trend?

maybe you should give your head a shake
thats kind of a bassackwards way of thinking...

just because less of you actually look into this information with a critical eye doesnt make you right :haha:

SlySi 03-19-2009 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsx (Post 6336822)
The only point I'm trying to get across is: Increasing human population+encroachment+habitat destruction+deforestation+industrialization+(to some extent cars)+extinction will have an effect on the environment.

.

BNR32_Coupe,
Can you understand that?

Do we need to chart this out for you?

ZhangFei 03-19-2009 04:23 PM
this thread is a mess

and didn't people get the idea of a one world government from the book of revelations?

Lomac 03-19-2009 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlySi (Post 6337856)
BNR32_Coupe,
Can you understand that?

Do we need to chart this out for you?
The real question is how much of an impact does it have? Climate change results from variations in five different factors: the sun's output of radiant heat, the Earth's orbit, the composition of the atmosphere, the amount of dust produced by volcanoes, and levels of land and oceans resulting from movement of the Earth's crust. There are three variations of the Earth's cycles: interglacial, mild glacial and glacial. Each one is dependent on the amount of heat the Earth receives from the sun, and when it reaches a critical threshold, each caused by the variations in the factors I mentioned, it dips into the next cycle. It's possible that previous "climate changes" have been affected solely by overpopulation of cows, buffalo and elephants, all of which emit high levels of methane. Other changes could have been induced by large volcanic eruptions along the Pacific Rim (or any other fault line), whose dust and clouds managed to effectively hide the sun for an extended amount of time. There have been instances of giant forest fires, large enough to cover entire provinces and states. Who's to say that the amount of razing we've done over the past century hasn't surpassed natural forest fires over the course of time? Who's to say that the emissions caused by our cars and factories are still naught in comparison to methane level from animals? Who's to say that the change in our weather is the effect of ourselves when, if you look into recorded weather history, it's on par with many days in decades long past?

StaxBundlez 03-20-2009 10:54 AM
Um.. I'm going to have to agree that climate change has always been happening.. I'm not gonna say that we humans don't have an effect on the planet.. because that would just be plain ignorant..BUT what is true is the planet HAS been changing.. I mean.. what?.. we humans have only been around for 2.2 million years or so? It was about 6 million years ago since our ancestors were just starting to walk up right? Well lets put 6 million years into perspective.. that's about a mere.. 60 ice ages or so? Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.. This is just acquired knowledge.. I'm sure none of you are geophysicists or environmental geologists.. and most of your information has probably been acquired through browsing wikipedia, or typing in "climate change" into google.. It's really quite hard to say exactly where I stand on this whole climate issue.. because I only know from what i read.. Plus the fact that there is so much propaganda in the media.. It's hard to sit down and decipher fact.. I'm sure most of you can say the same..

.. and another thing.. When you decide to debate about science and fact, or use logical reasoning to interpret physical data... please don't try to quote excerpts from the bible.. It has little to no academic merit, and has a track record of bronze age superstitious none sense.. It has no place in the academic arena.. and it makes you look pretty dumb..

rslater 03-20-2009 05:40 PM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/28/61...73776645e8.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/45...fb62f2.jpg?v=0

http://datacore.sciflicks.com/the_ti...e_large_01.jpg

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecac...meMach_485.jpg

http://pro.corbis.com/images/42-1759...BB577C84F57%7D

http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/MES2117.jpg

Nightwalker 03-20-2009 10:05 PM
^ The third picture! He can explain it all to us using his time machine!


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:13 PM.
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net