Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-10-2013, 11:53 AM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,179,016 times
Reputation: 18824

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Sigh. The country that sent men to the moon no longer exists. The US is now the country that watches Honey Boo-Boo.
I'm glad i'm not the only person that feels this way. This has become a nation that would rather live in denial if fixing something is too hard or costs a few bucks.

Science? What's that? LOL...astounding. A nation full of hayseeds. SMH
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-10-2013, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,080 posts, read 14,317,542 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Sigh. The country that sent men to the moon no longer exists. The US is now the country that watches Honey Boo-Boo.
It's really something, isn't it?

But when it comes to seeing the world through the wrong end of a telescope, no one tops Bill O'Reilly, who has been the butt of a thousand jokes after confronting an atheist on his show with irrefutable evidence of the existence of God--using as his evidence the fact that the tides come in and the tides go out. I mean, O'Reilly said with great certainty, who else could possibly be controlling that?
As any scientist could tell you, it's the moon that controls the tides. So Papa Bear has taken to the airwaves again to pursue a new wrinkle in his faux science agenda. He now acknowledges that the tides might indeed be controlled by the moon. But so what? As he says: "How'd the moon get there? Can you explain that to me? How come we have that? And Mars doesn't have it. Venus doesn't have it. How come?"
Actually, as any amateur astronomer knows, Jupiter has lots of moons, 63 in all, several of which you can see through a good pair of binoculars. One of them, Ganymede, is actually larger than Mercury. Saturn has 62 moons. Uranus has 27 moons. And hey, Bill, Mars actually has two moons of its own, that were discovered in 1877, long before even Roger Ailes was born. As far as I know, there's no evidence that either of them are made of green cheese either. I'm beginning to think that O'Reilly might have slept through quite a few of his fifth-grade science classes. But he sure is certain in his beliefs.
The Big Picture:Bill O'Reilly on science: Why is Earth the only planet with a moon?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 12:01 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,820,716 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
1895? Why don't I believe you?
because you are a hardcore alarmist following what the media tells you?

a few articles for you, and by the way i was wrong, in 1895 the new york times was claiming global cooling was right around the corner;

Fire and Ice | Media Research Center

Fire and Ice: 110 Years of Global Warming/Cooling Bias | NewsBusters

150 Years of Global Warming and Cooling at the New York Times | NewsBusters

Climate Change Alarmism Timeline 1895-2009 | An Honest Climate Debate

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend - NYTimes.com

Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz
Sweetie, you're arguing with people who can't spell, don't know the difference between a Pulitzer and a Nobel Prize, think too much education is harmful, believe the earth is the only planet with a moon, but think they know ALL about science.
Give it up. They'll deny global warming even as they're bursting into flames.
It's the Conservative platform.
really? i am betting that you dont know how many moons mars or pluto have. i am for good education, and lots of it. what i am NOT for is biased education. those that educate the children must be neutral politically, or at least present information in a neutral manner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Calgary, AB
3,401 posts, read 2,283,757 times
Reputation: 1072
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01Snake View Post
Do your own research.
I did. And I didn't go to USA Today to do it either. Now I'm waiting to see what you say. Why did you post an article in a sub-par newspaper? Why don't you show me these incorrect predictions? All you've done is post a link to people saying the same thing you are. That's not good enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Calgary, AB
3,401 posts, read 2,283,757 times
Reputation: 1072
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
because you are a hardcore alarmist following what the media tells you?
In case you haven't noticed, I don't link to "the media", I link to the research, or at worst to summations of the research. You link to websites owned by right-wingers who whine about how the news isn't conservative enough for them. Media Research Center? That's where you go for the latest in scientific research? Why not cite the facts instead of what right-wing bozos have to say about the facts?

And I haven't raised any alarms, hardcore or otherwise. I've just exposed right-wing claims as false.

Quote:
really? i am betting that you dont know how many moons mars or pluto have.
I think I can. Mars has two, Phobos and Deimos. Most likely captured asteroids. Pluto has I believe three, or maybe two if you choose to define Pluto and Charon as a binary planetoid, because the center of mass of that system is between Pluto and Charon rather than within Pluto the way the center of mass in the Earth/moon system is within the Earth. Off the top of my head I can't name the two little rocks.

Shame I'm not a betting man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 12:51 PM
 
Location: My little patch of Earth
6,193 posts, read 5,366,177 times
Reputation: 3059
My kingdom for a hockey stick......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,848 posts, read 8,202,687 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
Did you know that a few thousand years ago the earth was warm enough for there to be a monsoon in the Sahara? Humans were around back then. We'll live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post

Oh, good grief! If you did a bit of reading, just a bit, you'd understand how warmer weather brings more snow. On second, thought, I wouldn't want you to strain yourself.
Carry on.
Warmth is energy. Greenhouse gases allow the Earth to hold more of its energy in, rather than losing it to space. This energy creates more evaporation. More evaporation means more precipitation. More precipitation in places like, Antarctica or Greenland means more snow. More snow means more snow buildup.

When people talking about global warming. They are generally talking about something like a 2 degrees Celsius average increase in temperature. The Earth in the past has been more like 20 degrees Celsius hotter than it is today. But regardless, 2 degrees Celsius is 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

While the effects of global warming won't be equally distributed. If we were to pretend for a moment that they were. Imagine it like anywhere on Earth will warm by 3.8 degrees across the board. So if for instance the daytime high in summer was 100 degrees. Instead it would be 103.8 degrees. Not exactly a significant difference, but it certainly have an effect.


The nice thing is, a warming Earth will also drastically change weather patterns. A combination of increasing precipitation, with changing wind patterns. Could mean certain parts of the world which are currently deserts. Could actually become fertile again(which was the case in the Sahara not too long ago).


The Earth is going to be fine. I'm kind of looking forward to the changes anyway. And sometimes when I look at the map of what the Earth would look like if all the ice melted. I am actually kind of jealous. Because that seems like a much more awesome planet. Look at the map

Rising Seas - Interactive: If All The Ice Melted

I mean, a great bay in what is now the Mississippi river. That would turn Memphis and Little Rock into basically coastal cities. You probably wouldn't even need the Panama Canal anymore, because you could just go back and forth from the Pacific and the Atlantic. The Amazon river would become a massive sea. Reaching into the heart of South America. And Europe is probably the most awesome. With a massive expansion of the Caspian and Black seas. Giving the Caspian sea direct access to the Mediterranean. The Suez Canal will expand significantly. And you'll have a great sea in the middle of Australia as well.

The existence of so much surface water and the existence of more heat. Will lead to an ever increasing amount of evaporation, and thus precipitation. And in places like Australia. The vast desert might actually become lush forests. Especially if sea level rise, then the relative elevation will be less. Making winds more capable of carrying moisture further distances.

Now, the likelihood of all the ice melting is basically zero. And even if it was possible, it would take thousands of years. So I won't be here to see it. But still, I think its pretty awesome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 01:10 PM
 
35,095 posts, read 51,212,218 times
Reputation: 62667
I will in theory be 117 years old in 2047 so I have a feeling I really won't much care any more then than I do now about the world becoming non existant.
Not like I can control it so I just don't worry with it all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 01:13 PM
 
Location: texas
9,127 posts, read 7,939,644 times
Reputation: 2385
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSD610 View Post
I will in theory be 117 years old in 2047 so I have a feeling I really won't much care any more then than I do now about the world becoming non existant.
Not like I can control it so I just don't worry with it all.

I think the more correct theory is that you and I will be dead in 2047.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 01:16 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,088 posts, read 13,444,381 times
Reputation: 14266
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Perhaps we will luck out and all of the liberals will participate in a mass suicide (like Jonestown) prior to "the end". It would be a fitting end to a perverse cult.
Perhaps what will happen is that you will continue to be a bitter, angry person who no one likes. Yes, I think that is more likely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:47 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top