• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

global warming contributed to Katrina and Rita, says scientists

Oh God!! Please stop using the bible for our screw ups. There is no doubt that greenhouse is getting worse and worsening at an even alarming rate. There is nothing you can do and in my opinion its too late. All of you need to quit the bit*****
 
AlbqOwl said:
I didn't say that environmental concerns are a liberal agenda at all. I know it's hard to believe, but I am pretty darn sure that conservatives, even Bush-supporting Republicans, actually want clean air, clean water, lots of wildlife, unpolluted food sources, and the unsullied beauty of nature for themselves and their children. I am no liberal by modern definitions, but I am about as pro-environment as it gets.

The difference I most often see between 'liberal' environmentalism and 'conservative' environmentalism is that liberals usually want to exclude economic development as a solution to environmental issues while conservatives usually want to find environmentally friendly ways to achieve economic development. EDF most often sides with the liberals in this regard, and Undoit is a group imbedded within EDF that is actively trying to extricate economic development from the environment period.

I’m sorry, but you are misinformed.

  • Undoit is not a group imbedded with EDF. Undoit is simply a campaign by the Environmental Defense Fund whose main purpose is the passage of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. Hardly a liberal agenda. Its right on their homepage: http://www.undoit.org/home.cfm
  • Liberal environmentalism and conservative environmentalism is exactly the same. There is no difference. As I stated before, the difference is either pro-conservation or pro-business. Regulation and oversight in the majority of cases is the only way to achieve environmentally friendly ways of economic development. The reason for this is that in most cases, there is simply no economic incentive whatsoever for being environmentally friendly in economic development. It’s much cheaper to build a plant without pollution controls than with pollution controls. Hence the need for regulation and oversight. The balance is in making sure that the regulation and oversight is not so burdening that it puts a drag on economic growth. Being that we have had some of the strongest economic growth in our nation’s history in the last 30 years, I would have to argue that the current environmental regulations are hardly crippling to the economy. When a pro-industry / anti-conservation politician argues that a law needs to be revisited because “we need more balance” that is a disingenuous argument. For example, when the Clean Air Act was passed, the oil and coal industry outspent environmental groups when lobbying congress by over 10 to 1. They had their say then, they had their balance then. To revisit the bill, all that really means is that they want to slant it more towards industry, and less towards science and public concerns.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I’m sorry, but you are misinformed.

  • Undoit is not a group imbedded with EDF. Undoit is simply a campaign by the Environmental Defense Fund whose main purpose is the passage of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. Hardly a liberal agenda. Its right on their homepage: http://www.undoit.org/home.cfm
  • Liberal environmentalism and conservative environmentalism is exactly the same. There is no difference. As I stated before, the difference is either pro-conservation or pro-business. Regulation and oversight in the majority of cases is the only way to achieve environmentally friendly ways of economic development. The reason for this is that in most cases, there is simply no economic incentive whatsoever for being environmentally friendly in economic development. It’s much cheaper to build a plant without pollution controls than with pollution controls. Hence the need for regulation and oversight. The balance is in making sure that the regulation and oversight is not so burdening that it puts a drag on economic growth. Being that we have had some of the strongest economic growth in our nation’s history in the last 30 years, I would have to argue that the current environmental regulations are hardly crippling to the economy. When a pro-industry / anti-conservation politician argues that a law needs to be revisited because “we need more balance” that is a disingenuous argument. For example, when the Clean Air Act was passed, the oil and coal industry outspent environmental groups when lobbying congress by over 10 to 1. They had their say then, they had their balance then. To revisit the bill, all that really means is that they want to slant it more towards industry, and less towards science and public concerns.

On the EDF website:
The Environmental Defense site, undoit.org, is anchored by interactive features giving citizens information, news and activism tools they need to convince American political leaders to support the Climate Stewardship Act. Environmental Defense is working to spread the word about its online petition across the U.S. and around the world.

THe first hit searching "Climate Stewardship Act" took me straight to NDRC, nobody's idea of a conservative organization, and the Act itself advocates strong governmental mandates on business with severe punative measures for enforcement whether or not there is the science to back up a claim of necessity for such mandates. Of course the mandates are to combat global warming.

This is not the conservative way to address such problems. The conservative way is to be sure that something is broken before government meddling is justified. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between conservative and liberal approaches to both conservation and environmental issues.

Also, the conservative way is to find a way to do conservation without denying humankind vital or important resources and this has been done magnificently with environmentally friendly drilling rigs in the Gulf and in the current oil industry in Alaska including the pipeline. The Gulf fishing industry has not been harmed in any way by the rigs, and there are as many moose and caribou now as there ever were before such activity was initiated.

Environmentalism does not have to be knee jerk reaction to every scaremongering new 'scientific' report that comes out, nor in most cases does it need to be extreme in any way.

The conservative way is to find ways for humans to live in and use the planet's resources while doing as little harm as possible. Nobody advocates destroying the environment, exterminating species, etc. as that is in nobody's interests in any way, and certainly it is in nobody's economic interests.

Do I think reasonable controls are necessary to keep those who don't give a damn about any of it in check? Yes I do. Do I think the liberals generally tend to overdo that? Yes I do.

I advocate both environmental consciousness and protection coupled with good science and common sense. I recommend everybody support that.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
On the EDF website:


THe first hit searching "Climate Stewardship Act" took me straight to NDRC, nobody's idea of a conservative organization, and the Act itself advocates strong governmental mandates on business with severe punative measures for enforcement whether or not there is the science to back up a claim of necessity for such mandates. Of course the mandates are to combat global warming.

This is not the conservative way to address such problems. The conservative way is to be sure that something is broken before government meddling is justified. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between conservative and liberal approaches to both conservation and environmental issues.

Also, the conservative way is to find a way to do conservation without denying humankind vital or important resources and this has been done magnificently with environmentally friendly drilling rigs in the Gulf and in the current oil industry in Alaska including the pipeline. The Gulf fishing industry has not been harmed in any way by the rigs, and there are as many moose and caribou now as there ever were before such activity was initiated.

Environmentalism does not have to be knee jerk reaction to every scaremongering new 'scientific' report that comes out, nor in most cases does it need to be extreme in any way.

The conservative way is to find ways for humans to live in and use the planet's resources while doing as little harm as possible. Nobody advocates destroying the environment, exterminating species, etc. as that is in nobody's interests in any way, and certainly it is in nobody's economic interests.

Do I think reasonable controls are necessary to keep those who don't give a damn about any of it in check? Yes I do. Do I think the liberals generally tend to overdo that? Yes I do.

I advocate both environmental consciousness and protection coupled with good science and common sense. I recommend everybody support that.

The Natural Resources Defense Council is not a liberal organization either. It is a pro-conservation / pro-environment organization. To call it a liberal organization is like calling the NRA a right wing organization. Of course, the NRA is not a right wing organization, it is simply an organization who lobbies for the rights of gun owners. The NRDC and the EDF are simply non-partisan organizations who advocate and lobby for environmental protections. They support Democrats or Republicans who are pro-conservation. Republicans used to be the party of conservation. Nixon was one of the best environmentalist presidents ever. It has only been in the last 20 years or so that many, but certainly not all, Republicans have started taking the concerns of big contributing industries over science.

You brought up oil rigs. Did you know that thousands of oil spills go unreported? I have a good friend from Louisiana that worked on offshore rigs for years. You know what will get you fired and blacklisted from ever working for an oil company again? If you caught with a camera on an offshore rig. Ask anyone who has worked on them and they will tell you the same. Ever been down to Houston, there is not such thing as “clean oil”, but rather, there is only cleaner oil, in that oil production and extraction that does not pollute as much. Of course, there is no economic incentive for cleaner oil production without regulation and mandates. Even under all those regulations and mandates, oil companies like Exxon are still the most profitable companies in the history of civilization.

You brought up Alaska, the only reason why you have environmentally friendly oil drilling and production practices up there is that regulations and mandates ensure that oil companies adhere to such practices. Without the regulations and mandates, there would be no incentive at all to adhere to those practices. Would all companies just all of a sudden start polluting? Of course not. But in a free market, all it takes is one company then every other company must do the same in order to compete. The whole point of environmental regulations is to ensure a level playing field.

The success stories you mention are directly attributable to the lobbying and activities of mainstream organizations like The Natural Resources Defense Council and The Environmental Defense Fund. They are the organizations that lobbied congress to ensure that the regulations and oversight was in place so that we have relatively clean oil production in Alaska and the Gulf, and oil companies and pro-industry politicians fought them every step of the way. That is the balance in our laws. For every dollar an environmentalist organization spends lobbying congress or contributing to a campaign, the oil and extraction industries spend a 100. The only reason why environmentalist organizations win any battles in congress is that science, common sense, and public opinion is indeed on their side.
 
Last edited:
All on the left will be surprised to see a rep/con say this, but dont get too excited
Global Warming is a REALITY

However, unlike the chicken-littles on the left, from all the evidence i have read, heard, and seen, it is just a natural cycle of the planet. as is intense hurricane systems
Are the Oil companies responsible for the last iceage, and the next iceage for that matter.
Did industrialization dramatically affect the planet or is it more likely that the recent increased Solar Flare Activity is responsible for the warming of the planet

now for those worried about the melting ice caps raising the sealevel and flooding coastal areas, do your self a favor and do the following experiment

1. Get a container, drinking glass or anything whatsoever, or everything
2. fill it with ice to the top
3 fill it with water after you filled it with ice
4 get back to me when the glass overflows

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, and as such, neither will all the dire predictions of the chicken littles, which for the most part are people who envy/resent/despise/hate America
and they sold morons on this concept as a way to cripple our economy and bring down the only Superpower left

this is a non issue if you are the least bit rational
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The Natural Resources Defense Council is not a liberal organization either. It is a pro-conservation / pro-environment organization. To call it a liberal organization is like calling the NRA a right wing organization. Of course, the NRA is not a right wing organization, it is simply an organization who lobbies for the rights of gun owners. The NRDC and the EDF are simply non-partisan organizations who advocate and lobby for environmental protections. They support Democrats or Republicans who are pro-conservation. Republicans used to be the party of conservation. Nixon was one of the best environmentalist presidents ever. It has only been in the last 20 years or so that many, but certainly not all, Republicans have started taking the concerns of big contributing industries over science.

You brought up oil rigs. Did you know that thousands of oil spills go unreported? I have a good friend from Louisiana that worked on offshore rigs for years. You know what will get you fired and blacklisted from ever working for an oil company again? If you caught with a camera on an offshore rig. Ask anyone who has worked on them and they will tell you the same. Ever been down to Houston, there is not such thing as “clean oil”, but rather, there is only cleaner oil, in that oil production and extraction that does not pollute as much. Of course, there is no economic incentive for cleaner oil production without regulation and mandates. Even under all those regulations and mandates, oil companies like Exxon are still the most profitable companies in the history of civilization.

You brought up Alaska, the only reason why you have environmentally friendly oil drilling and production practices up there is that regulations and mandates ensure that oil companies adhere to such practices. Without the regulations and mandates, there would be no incentive at all to adhere to those practices. Would all companies just all of a sudden start polluting? Of course not. But in a free market, all it takes is one company then every other company must do the same in order to compete. The whole point of environmental regulations is to ensure a level playing field.

The success stories you mention are directly attributable to the lobbying and activities of mainstream organizations like The Natural Resources Defense Council and The Environmental Defense Fund. They are the organizations that lobbied congress to ensure that the regulations and oversight was in place so that we have relatively clean oil production in Alaska and the Gulf, and oil companies and pro-industry politicians fought them every step of the way. That is the balance in our laws. For every dollar an environmentalist organization spends lobbying congress or contributing to a campaign, the oil and extraction industries spend a 100. The only reason why environmentalist organizations win any battles in congress is that science, common sense, and public opinion is indeed on their side.

What makes a group 'left wing' or 'right wing' is not what they are, but who cites them as sources, who funds them, who joins them, who supports them. Do you think many leftwingers would be advocates for the NRA? I don't think many rightwingers would be advocates of Moveon.org. That is the criteria I use to attach the 'liberal' or 'conservative' labels to things.

Houston has some air issues from its refineries because 25% of the refining capacity of the nation is in that area. Without that, we would all be walking or using our bicycles a lot more, and refineries are concentrated there because of a friendly environment for them. Spread those refineries out over a much larger area and pollution would be no problem at all.

Sure there are oil spills in the Gulf and they are not having a significant impact on the sealife there. Workers on the rigs are not allowed to take photographs there not because of environmental issues but to avoid pinpointing sabotage opportunities. (My son is an engineer for Conoco-Phillips) You honestly can have the presence of crude oil, storage, transporting, and refining installations without causing serious damage to the environment. And, if the radical environmentalists would work with the oil companies instead of against them, we could do a far better job than we are doing.

We haven't built a new refinery in this country in three decades. Why? Because the radical environmentalists fight them so hard that they are no longer cost effective to build. So we're stuck with older, more polluting facilities and higher costs of producing the products and those are concentrated at what should be an unacceptable level. There is a better way to manage energy production in this country.

I advocate the conservative way. Work with industry and commerce instead of attempting to prevent it, and we would see far more environmental efficiency than what we are now getting.

As you pointed out, it worked in Alaska. All, probably most, of the envirtonmentalists helping with that project were on the conservative side of the aisle. The radical leftwingers were still demonstratng and protesting and trying to stop the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
What makes a group 'left wing' or 'right wing' is not what they are, but who cites them as sources, who funds them, who joins them, who supports them. Do you think many leftwingers would be advocates for the NRA? I don't think many rightwingers would be advocates of Moveon.org. That is the criteria I use to attach the 'liberal' or 'conservative' labels to things.

Houston has some air issues from its refineries because 25% of the refining capacity of the nation is in that area. Without that, we would all be walking or using our bicycles a lot more, and refineries are concentrated there because of a friendly environment for them. Spread those refineries out over a much larger area and pollution would be no problem at all.

Sure there are oil spills in the Gulf and they are not having a significant impact on the sealife there. Workers on the rigs are not allowed to take photographs there not because of environmental issues but to avoid pinpointing sabotage opportunities. (My son is an engineer for Conoco-Phillips) You honestly can have the presence of crude oil, storage, transporting, and refining installations without causing serious damage to the environment. And, if the radical environmentalists would work with the oil companies instead of against them, we could do a far better job than we are doing.

We haven't built a new refinery in this country in three decades. Why? Because the radical environmentalists fight them so hard that they are no longer cost effective to build. So we're stuck with older, more polluting facilities and higher costs of producing the products and those are concentrated at what should be an unacceptable level. There is a better way to manage energy production in this country.

I advocate the conservative way. Work with industry and commerce instead of attempting to prevent it, and we would see far more environmental efficiency than what we are now getting.

As you pointed out, it worked in Alaska. All, probably most, of the envirtonmentalists helping with that project were on the conservative side of the aisle. The radical leftwingers were still demonstratng and protesting and trying to stop the whole thing.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree here. Almost every environmental regulation in place was fought tooth and nail by the oil and extraction industries. I don’t fault them for it. As I said earlier, they have little if any economic incentive to not pollute, hence the need for regulation and oversight.

The reason no refineries have been built has little to do with environmentalists and more to do with local communities not wanting them in their back yards, and the fact that there is a strong economic incentive for oil companies and independent refinery operators not to build new ones. If the oil industry wanted more refineries, they would build them. It is right now by far the most profitable industry in the history of civilization. They spend literally 100 to 1 more lobbying congress and influencing legislation than environmentalist groups do.

Your right, a lot of environmentalists and conservationist groups did not want the Alaskan Pipeline being built. So for it to be built, and for it to get through congress, a large number of environmental safeguards, regulations, and oversight had to be put in the bill to authorize the pipeline. Those “conservatives” who were both pro-industry Democrats and Republicans at the time, fought tooth and nail against every one of those regulations and safeguards. The fact is, if it were not for conservationists and environmentalists, there would be no regulations or oversight at all protecting air, water, land, and public lands. Of course, there are two sides to everything, if it were not for industry, there would be no economic growth.

That is the balance, that is how we have clean air and water, pristene public lands, abundant wildlife, and a strong economy.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think we will just have to agree to disagree here. Almost every environmental regulation in place was fought tooth and nail by the oil and extraction industries. I don’t fault them for it. As I said earlier, they have little if any economic incentive to not pollute, hence the need for regulation and oversight.

The reason no refineries have been built has little to do with environmentalists and more to do with local communities not wanting them in their back yards, and the fact that there is a strong economic incentive for oil companies and independent refinery operators not to build new ones. If the oil industry wanted more refineries, they would build them. It is right now by far the most profitable industry in the history of civilization. They spend literally 100 to 1 more lobbying congress and influencing legislation than environmentalist groups do.

Your right, a lot of environmentalists and conservationist groups did not want the Alaskan Pipeline being built. So for it to be built, and for it to get through congress, a large number of environmental safeguards, regulations, and oversight had to be put in the bill to authorize the pipeline. Those “conservatives” who were both pro-industry Democrats and Republicans at the time, fought tooth and nail against every one of those regulations and safeguards. The fact is, if it were not for conservationists and environmentalists, there would be no regulations or oversight at all protecting air, water, land, and public lands. Of course, there are two sides to everything, if it were not for industry, there would be no economic growth.

You're right that we'll probably just have to agree to disagree. I know from pretty well first hand knowledge that your recollection of the environmental issues and the Alaska pipeline is not entirely accurate. The oil companies have probably contributed more technology to help clean up 'dirty' processing for various industries than any other single group. They all are not anxious to be environmentally unfriendly as you think. I agree we need the environmentalists, but do not think that they aren't found within the very industries that they seek to regulate with environmentally friendly policies.

And there are thousands upon thousands of small communities of 10,000 to 20,000 people who desperately need good paying jobs and who would jump at a chance to have a refinery in their midst if enough counterproductive environmental regulations could be cleared to make it economically feasible to build them. Spread it all out and we have plenty of cheap gas again, lots of people are put to work in good paying jobs, and the environment doesn't have to suffer at all. And it would buy us enough time and provide enough boost to the economy to do the necessary research and prototype development to start the process of weaning us off oil within the next 30 to 50 years. We can do anything we want to do badly enough. It just requires a lot less nonsense, finger pointing, and condemnation and a lot more common sense, cooperative ventures, and shared vision.
 
AlbqOwl said:
And there are thousands upon thousands of small communities of 10,000 to 20,000 people who desperately need good paying jobs and who would jump at a chance to have a refinery in their midst

you are damn right
i kept hearing during the election all these (small)areas(not too many) that were still hurting, despite the growing economy
they would kill to have these refineries and jobs it would bring

however when refineries stopped being built, there was actually an over-capacity.
now we are under capacity, and too concentrated in one area
this could be as a result in part of environmentalists, but only the well-to-do actually decry having something built in their back yard.
not the poor
 
AlbqOwl said:
You're right that we'll probably just have to agree to disagree. I know from pretty well first hand knowledge that your recollection of the environmental issues and the Alaska pipeline is not entirely accurate. The oil companies have probably contributed more technology to help clean up 'dirty' processing for various industries than any other single group. They all are not anxious to be environmentally unfriendly as you think. I agree we need the environmentalists, but do not think that they aren't found within the very industries that they seek to regulate with environmentally friendly policies.

Why do they contribute that technology? Why do you think they hire environmentalists? Because they do so to comply with environmental mandates. If you a stockholder in Exxon, you want the company to make money. That is the purpose of a company, to make money. For example, people try to blame outsourcing on greedy CEOs, but they have it all wrong it’s the stockholders who want the company to earn as much as it possibly can so the company sends jobs overseas to earn more money. To develop and implement more environmentally friendly technologies costs a significant amount of money. Stockholders want companies to make money, not spend it. Companies have no responsibility to the environment; they simply have a responsibility to their stockholders. That’s it. That is why you would not have the technologies if it were not for environmentalists, regulations and mandates.

Ralph Nader tells a story about a General Motors exec asking him why he spends so much time and energy advocating safer vehicles when General Motors builds safer vehicles today than ever before. Ralph Nader of course responded that his lobbying and advocating for safer vehicles is exactly why General Motors builds safer vehicles today than ever before. Ralph Nader calls that the “Progressives Dilemma”. Every accomplishment for a consumer advocate or environmentalist is simply used against them as a reason why more should not be done.

And there are thousands upon thousands of small communities of 10,000 to 20,000 people who desperately need good paying jobs and who would jump at a chance to have a refinery in their midst if enough counterproductive environmental regulations could be cleared to make it economically feasible to build them. Spread it all out and we have plenty of cheap gas again, lots of people are put to work in good paying jobs, and the environment doesn't have to suffer at all. And it would buy us enough time and provide enough boost to the economy to do the necessary research and prototype development to start the process of weaning us off oil within the next 30 to 50 years. We can do anything we want to do badly enough. It just requires a lot less nonsense, finger pointing, and condemnation and a lot more common sense, cooperative ventures, and shared vision.

If Exxon wanted a new oil refinery, then why would it not build one? What is to stop them? They are the most profitable company in the world so even if it cost more to install mandated pollution controls on a new refinery, why wouldn’t they do it if they wanted more refineries? They are awash with cash. Moreover, they have billions in subsidies paid for by you and me. If they wanted to build a refinery, they would build one. However, they have a financial interest in a constrained oil supply. Demand keeps going up, the tighter the supply, the more money that rolls in. Point blank, as a stockholder in Exxon, you don’t want any more refineries built.

Finally, many oil companies who go to such ends to make sure that oil production and extraction is a clean as possible in the United States, don’t got to such lengths when exploring for oil in third world nations. Why do you think that is? Is it because those third world nations don’t have the environmental regulations, oversight, and mandates that we have here? If you answered yes, you are probably right.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Because the causes of past climatic cycles are well understood by science. The only way to accurately model todays warming is to introduce human activity into the models.
You're not for real, are you? The current models can't predict what happened last year let alone next century.

They don't know why the Altithermal happened, they don't know why Greenland was once liveable, and they're not sure at all what effect the Maunder Minimum had on 17th century global cooling. There's a lot of evidence that it was caused by a volcano.

The current warming trend is so slight that there's legitimate debate on if it's happening. There's also legitimate debate on it's cause, if it is happening. We don't know if it could be part of a natural cycle (the Altithermal was FIVE degrees warmer than today, and had no human cause), or if indeed it is of human origin.

The dynamic relationship between insolation, atmospheric chemistry, and the various biologic and other carbon sinks is two steps away from being a complete mystery.

Truly effective climatological data has only been collected since Sputnik. We've a baseline of less than 50 years and we're trying to understand a climate cycle that may span 250,000 years. Current predictions of future climate today is as reliable picking the winner of a horse race knowing only the names of three of the eight horses and nothing else.
 
It's a big duh that the Earth is warming. Cyclical since before we were here. Show me how WE are affecting this by any measurable way. Data, facts, and science folks, don't waste my time, I've monkeys :monkeyarm to attend to.
 
DeeJayH said:
All on the left will be surprised to see a rep/con say this, but dont get too excited
Global Warming is a REALITY

The more accurate statement is Global Climate change is a REALITY. Our planet warms some and then it cools some and there is little we can do to change or influence that. And as you point out no one has really shown that a little warming is not benificial in fact many scientist say it would/is a benefit.
 
wxcrazytwo said:
Umm, it takes more than warm water to create hurricanes. I think you need to brush up on your met skills.

Warm water plays an enormous part in hurricane development!
 
128shot said:





Dear 128shot, ..You might want to think again. Long before the earth was even hardly populated, ..before the days of the automobile, & carbon fuels..save except some wood burning by our ancient but FEW ancestors; the earth went through cycles of violent change, warm trends, & even ice ages & they were numerous.

Mankind is NOT as BIG as you seem to think to cause hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, cold spells, warm spells..or any type of serious climatic change.

You might not want to buy into all that liberal dogmatic funk; ..for there ARE forces much greater than man in spite of the popularity of the "humanist manifesto", & its core of psuedo-intellectual followers!

Good thing that dinosaurs & man were not contemporaries lest you would believe that Fred Flintstone & Barney Rubble caused the demise of the dinosaurs;...IF the New York Times, & TIME magazine popularized such a theory!:smile:

Even today...the theory of that big metorite impacting in central America is now being questioned as to whether or not IT was the sole reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs!

I have a question for you: IF all big game animals, & big reptiles were wiped out...how is it that deer, bears, elephants, lions, camels, horses, hippos, giraffes etc etc.....came into EXISTENCE since "mans god" (science) says that ALL big mammals were also wiped out by previous earthly catastrophies such as the one 65 million years ago in central america??

Oh come come now, ...evolutionists I'm sure can talk their way out of that, ..but WHAT say YOU? ;)
 
Last edited:
Stu Ghatze said:
I have a question for you: IF all big game animals, & big reptiles were wiped out...how is it that deer, bears, elephants, lions, camels, horses, hippos, giraffes etc etc.....came into EXISTENCE since "mans god" (science) says that ALL big mammals were also wiped out by previous earthly catastrophies such as the one 65 million years ago in central america??

Ask a tough one sometime. The big game animals didn't exist at the time of the KT boundary. They evolved from smaller surviving species in the intervening time.
 
All on the left will be surprised to see a rep/con say this, but dont get too excited
Global Warming is a REALITY

However, unlike the chicken-littles on the left, from all the evidence i have read, heard, and seen, it is just a natural cycle of the planet. as is intense hurricane systems
Are the Oil companies responsible for the last iceage, and the next iceage for that matter.
Did industrialization dramatically affect the planet or is it more likely that the recent increased Solar Flare Activity is responsible for the warming of the planet

now for those worried about the melting ice caps raising the sealevel and flooding coastal areas, do your self a favor and do the following experiment

1. Get a container, drinking glass or anything whatsoever, or everything
2. fill it with ice to the top
3 fill it with water after you filled it with ice
4 get back to me when the glass overflows

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, and as such, neither will all the dire predictions of the chicken littles, which for the most part are people who envy/resent/despise/hate America
and they sold morons on this concept as a way to cripple our economy and bring down the only Superpower left

this is a non issue if you are the least bit rational

You do understand that your statement is a total false analogy, and consequently, not the least bit rational. First, I will give you some background definitions so you understand the problem:


1. ice·cap or ice cap Audio pronunciation of "ice cap" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skp)
n.

An extensive dome-shaped or platelike perennial cover of ice and snow that spreads out from a center and covers a large area, especially of land.

2. gla·cier Audio pronunciation of "glacier" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (glshr)
n.

A huge mass of ice slowly flowing over a land mass, formed from compacted snow in an area where snow accumulation exceeds melting and sublimation.



By comparing the melting of ice on the planet to filling a glass with water and dropping cubes it in, and then waiting for it to melt are totally different; the analogy only works when comparing the ice in the glass to the bergs and ice flows on the sea. Of course if the bergs melt, as did the ice, nothing would overflow because of displacement.

Your analogy fails because you are obviously confusing "ice-cap/glacier" with ice bergs or water-based ice flows. This is hardly the case, since the vast majority of "ice-caps" and "glaciers" are on land, not displacing water in the sea. Much of it is locked on glaciers. There are no such things as "sea glaciers," and as already explained, "ice-caps" refer ALMOST exclusively to landbased ice flows. Ice on land does not displace volume on the ocean. What conclusions come from this? Well, since all glaciers are on land, and if they melt--yes, they will do damage via flooding once it runs off into the sea. Unlike the glass, the body of water is not simply displacing the same volume in a different state of matter. It is literally adding masses of water to it at a rate it cannot sustain. THe result is overflow, since landlocked water that can flow into the sea stands at about 20% of the global water supply. Now add 20% of that water to the ocean. OF that 20%, 80% of it consists of all of the freshwater on earth.

To reinforce what I said above about your analogy being incorrect:

An ice cap is defined as a thick permanent covering of ice and snow on land. This permanent layer extends outward in every direction. In this case, it extends from the north pole and the south pole. Ice caps were formed millions of years ago from layers of snow that were compressed together for millions of years. Between these layers, grains of snow were forced out as the bottom layers hardened into ice. Today, ice caps form over 80% of the fresh water on earth.

If the world's LANDBASED ice were to melt, the oceans would rise 6-7 metres.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml




A better analogy is thus: take a glass on a summer day, fill it with ice, and then fill it to the top with water. Let this be the oceans with water-based ice. Then, stick it next to a giant ice cube: let this represent the global glaciers. Watch it melt. See what happens to the level of the water in the glass. It doesn't take much to melt the glaciers.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Ask a tough one sometime. The big game animals didn't exist at the time of the KT boundary. They evolved from smaller surviving species in the intervening time.





Huh huh huh, ..I was expecting, & hoping for such a reply!:2razz: So...you believe that ALL the big game animals came from the "small" animals/mammals etc that were left upon the earth!

WHERE ARE ALL THE TRANSITIONARY EVIDENCES CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF TRANSITION CHANGE????

Clue: you can search until hell freezes over, ..or perhaps until a nice well intentioned but fraudulent "evolutionist" accidently finds a remnant of an ancient pigs jawbone, & hopes to meld it with a horse, ..or perhaps a bear, & then "whalla", ..we have finally found the evidence that the evolutionists WANT to suggest that THEY "hope" explains lifes mysteries without the need of THEM ever thinking that somebody, or something just might be bigger than they are, to which THEY cannot explain!:smile:

Why indeed, ..Everything just "must" have been an accident, & one hell of an overwhelming one at that, ..that even still NO TRANSITIONARY EVIDENCE OF SPECIE CHANGE HAS EVER BEEN FOUND.

And yet, ....the sale of "THE FAIRY TALE FOR ADULTS" (evolution) still goes on in its lust to replace God's wisdom, & knowledge with mans!:smile:

Why its not fair, or even accurate to allow scientists who are religious to interject their science because they are religious, & ..afteral, ..that would not be considered as good science......even though we evolutionists ourselves see "evolution" as our god, & religion, ...right?
 
Last edited:
Stu Ghatze said:
Huh huh huh, ..I was expecting, & hoping for such a reply!:2razz: So...you believe that ALL the big game animals came from the "small" animals/mammals etc that were left upon the earth!

WHERE ARE ALL THE TRANSITIONARY EVIDENCES CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF TRANSITION CHANGE????

You laid a trap eh? Now that the hook is firmly in your jaw, I'll state categorically that I agree with you fully, that fossils are not evidence of any pre-existing animals, since all animals were made in their present form by God and populated the Garden of Eden. The Bible says they have not changed, and that must be true because the Book says so.

And fossils must not exist in any form whatsoever, only servants of the Shining One can see them. I can't see them, of course. Because if fossils did exist, God must have put them there during his Creative effort. But since all the animals are made as they are, according to the Bible, then these alleged fossils must be impressions of non-existent animals. But God wouldn't put in fake impressions of imaginary animals, what point would there be but Deception? And God doesn't lie, the Bible says so. So those so-called fossils are clearly tools of the Great Satan and only his servants can see them.

Tell my you only see smooth rock and blank spots when people show you fossils!
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You laid a trap eh? Now that the hook is firmly in your jaw, I'll state categorically that I agree with you fully, that fossils are not evidence of any pre-existing animals, since all animals were made in their present form by God and populated the Garden of Eden. The Bible says they have not changed, and that must be true because the Book says so.

And fossils must not exist in any form whatsoever, only servants of the Shining One can see them. I can't see them, of course. Because if fossils did exist, God must have put them there during his Creative effort. But since all the animals are made as they are, according to the Bible, then these alleged fossils must be impressions of non-existent animals. But God wouldn't put in fake impressions of imaginary animals, what point would there be but Deception? And God doesn't lie, the Bible says so. So those so-called fossils are clearly tools of the Great Satan and only his servants can see them.

Tell my you only see smooth rock and blank spots when people show you fossils!








I agree that fossils exist, ...what made you think that I did not? The bible says nothing about fossils changing??? (what gives with that?)

I'm STILL waiting for "transitionary forms" that are the PROOF of this particular animal once being this, ..or that ...now "Morphed" into something else altogether???

You say that fossils are merely tools that "satan" uses?? Where was that "dug" up?;)
 
Stu Ghatze said:
I agree that fossils exist, ...what made you think that I did not? The bible says nothing about fossils changing??? (what gives with that?)

I'm STILL waiting for "transitionary forms" that are the PROOF of this particular animal once being this, ..or that ...now "Morphed" into something else altogether???

You say that fossils are merely tools that "satan" uses?? Where was that "dug" up?;)


My post was sufficiently clear, I will not elucidate.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
My post was sufficiently clear, I will not elucidate.

[Sarcastic Moderator mode]

What the heck kind of language is this?!?!?

I'll let this slide...but if you use "facade" or "esoteric", you're outta here!

[/Sarcastic Moderator mode]

:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom