"Moto2" 600cc Four-Stroke

MotoGP Forum

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DRILL @ Dec 16 2008, 10:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>That was my first thought brother but if the young guns get going from the start in MGP then its going to be the best from both race series,still want them 990`s back though.
<


The young guns are ..........just like the rest of the world..
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Dec 15 2008, 05:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I too would be very sad to see combustion engine racing disappear. But if you think that global warming is a myth then you are only fooling yourself. I studied climate change for a fair amount of time in college and we are in the middle of the most intense and rapid warming period in history. There have always been oscillations in warming and cooling, but never so much, so fast. Funny how this extreme rise coincides with the industrial revolution.
Well you may study climate change at a university and I am happy for you but most of the info those people get are biased. I know it is a farce as far as this climate change. It is a money making industry to siphon more moola from us and others for the govt. So we study the earth for 100 years or so and it has been around for how long? Now all of a sudden we are the experts? I don't think so. The oceans are colder than before. Funny also how we always hear about the North pole melting but never the increase of ice in the south pole. Plus the other thing I have an issue with is that colleges are liberal and usually biased towards the agendas of the environmentalists anyway. Plus I know people in that area of study and they tell me that if you believe the crap they spew you might as well just believe anything. So not trying to start an argument or anything I just think the carbon credits and all this BS concerning emmissons is really a joke to a point. We should as a society try and clean up our act but dude these tree hugging hippies that cry fowl when they see an suv can kiss my ... period. Plus they also want to rid us of gas burning machines in favor of the alternatives. If they want it fine more power to em. IF I don't want it, it is my choice just like religion. Believe if you want but they have to prove it to me cause really to me it is ......... It is all just a sham to take more money. Look at BP and the other oil companies and what they are trending to do. They are looking into battery technology. HA ha ha. SOmehow that doesn't make any sence to me at all. They are trying to perfect the hybrids. If the world was really that concerned then the should look into burning water which has been around for quite some time. People have died cause of it so to me they are full of it just like anyone who thinks by driving the hybrids are actually helping themselves gas wise and environmentally wise. A friend of mine owns a car lot and if you do the math the hybrid never really pays for itself vs. a traditional gas powered car. If you don't believe me ask someone who knows about the whole thing.
 
There are many theories about climate change/global warming. Until more is known they will remain theories. The problem is that enough people buy into a theory it will be accepted as a truth and our behaviour is quite likely to be governed to suit.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Dec 16 2008, 06:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>There are many theories about climate change/global warming. Until more is known they will remain theories. The problem is that enough people buy into a theory it will be accepted as a truth and our behaviour is quite likely to be governed to suit.
Thank you Tom that is what I am sayin about this whole debate about the climate. Just cause the guy is supposed to be an authority on the subject we are supposed to believe him implicitly? No way. If that was the case the world would still be believed to be flat. WE all are such sheep as a society. That to me at least just goes to show why friggin obama is the new pres. A rock star with posters and .... everywhere. Makes me sick. And he isn't really even african american, he is half white but that just never gets said just like his middle name. That is just me and another thing that makes me sick about what I am supposed to believe and take as the word. SO all in all when it is said and done GP racing will soon die and we will all be listening to recordings of bikes of ole' on the new electric bike through some really sweet speaker system. I think I will opt for the spoke wheels with mom's clothespins holding the two ace cards for sound. God the flower childern of yesteryear have all now grown thorns.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Dec 16 2008, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>There are many theories about climate change/global warming. Until more is known they will remain theories. The problem is that enough people buy into a theory it will be accepted as a truth and our behaviour is quite likely to be governed to suit.
I can always count on you to say something like this. (I'll be nice and not say 'dumb').

I suppose evolution is 'just' a theory too. But creationism has a hard time explaining these mythical creatures called dinosaurs, especially when pesky bones keep being unearthed.

Bottom line: Anybody who thinks climate change is a myth is ......... (PERIOD) No amount of evidence or explaining will convince them otherwise. Unlike religion, where your belief has no baring on my life, those who are too stupid to accept the peril of climate change are allowed to make policy that accelerates a global catastrophy. Just like now people calling the economic disaster a "crisis" as if we didn't have any control. There were sound and sober people telling us that degregulation and greedy unsustainable business practices were leading to disaster for the common person (while the executives and politicians made windfall profits for themselves). They said the nay sayers were anti-business, anti-progress, anti-capitalism, anti-American. Now look where we are. This is the same breed of people naysaying climate change. Then, when mother Earth starts to take a giant .... on us, we will have people saying its a natural "crisis". As if nothing could have been done about it.

One of the stupid arguments I keep hearing about climate change is that its a farce to swindle us out of money. Well of course some people will take advantage, people always do. Even now you have sharks preying on people who are being direly effected by economic conditions. You have scams all the time. (Just now in the news there is the uncovering of a scam where a bunch of people are losing money in the Billions, even "smart" people were scammed, like the Royal Bank of Scotland). So people think they can resist being scammed by what, not believing there is actually an effect from the pollution we emit upon the Earth? Stupid.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ROCKGOD01 @ Dec 16 2008, 11:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Thank you Tom that is what I am sayin about this whole debate about the climate. Just cause the guy is supposed to be an authority on the subject we are supposed to believe him implicitly? No way. If that was the case the world would still be believed to be flat. WE all are such sheep as a society. That to me at least just goes to show why friggin obama is the new pres. A rock star with posters and .... everywhere. Makes me sick. And he isn't really even african american, he is half white but that just never gets said just like his middle name. That is just me and another thing that makes me sick about what I am supposed to believe and take as the word. SO all in all when it is said and done GP racing will soon die and we will all be listening to recordings of bikes of ole' on the new electric bike through some really sweet speaker system. I think I will opt for the spoke wheels with mom's clothespins holding the two ace cards for sound. God the flower childern of yesteryear have all now grown thorns.


I so wish there would be a natural reaction as part of climate change that will accelerate natural selection and wipe out stupid ignorant people. Then I wouldn't have to quote...^^^

Enuf said.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Dec 16 2008, 07:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I can always count on you to say something like this. (I'll be nice and not say 'dumb').

I suppose evolution is 'just' a theory too. But creationism has a hard time explaining these mythical creatures called dinosaurs, especially when pesky bones keep being unearthed.

Bottom line: Anybody who thinks climate change is a myth is ......... (PERIOD) No amount of evidence or explaining will convince them otherwise. Unlike religion, where your belief has no baring on my life, those who are too stupid to accept the peril of climate change are allowed to make policy that accelerates a global catastrophy. Just like now people calling the economic disaster a "crisis" as if we didn't have any control. There were sound and sober people telling us that degregulation and greedy unsustainable business practices were leading to disaster for the common person (while the executives and politicians made windfall profits for themselves). They said the nay sayers were anti-business, anti-progress, anti-capitalism, anti-American. Now look where we are. This is the same breed of people naysaying climate change. Then, when mother Earth starts to take a giant .... on us, we will have people saying its a natural "crisis". As if nothing could have been done about it.

One of the stupid arguments I keep hearing about climate change is that its a farce to swindle us out of money. Well of course some people will take advantage, people always do. Even now you have sharks preying on people who are being direly effected by economic conditions. You have scams all the time. (Just now in the news there is the uncovering of a scam where a bunch of people are losing money in the Billions, even "smart" people were scammed, like the Royal Bank of Scotland). So people think they can resist being scammed by what, not believing there is actually problem with the pollution we emit upon the Earth? Stupid. I so wish there were a natural reaction to accelerate natural selection and wipe out stupid people.
Well jumkie you would be the first to go. It is morons like you that follow the crowd and always support the ones who hold you down. Baaaaaaa baaaaaaa .............

As far as the economy goes I do agree that the execs should be held out with their windfall ........ profits while the downtrodden who actually work get nothing. My friend just today who works for a telecommunicatons company just got the news regarding his profit sharing and 401k matching. IT is gone. That is ......... And he is a tech who keeps them running at the level they need in order to make the money the execs like to bathe in. But the climate thing dude your so wrong and have no real evidence. There hasn't been one person to put forth real evidence. Plus the religion thing is a pain in the ... but if you don't believe that is fine. IF you do then great. As long as you don't try and ram your .... down someone elses throat. Oh and as far as the dinosaurs the creationists have no problem with that. They have a problem with carbon dating. Scientists carbon dated a live penguin and found it was 150 thousand years old. It was really like 5. LOL.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Dec 16 2008, 07:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I can always count on you to say something like this. (I'll be nice and not say 'dumb').

I suppose evolution is 'just' a theory too. But creationism has a hard time explaining these mythical creatures called dinosaurs, especially when pesky bones keep being unearthed.

Assuming you are talking about darwinian evolution then yes, that is a theory. I'm glad you are catching on
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Dec 15 2008, 09:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I studied climate change for a fair amount of time in college and we are in the middle of the most intense and rapid warming period in history. There have always been oscillations in warming and cooling, but never so much, so fast. Funny how this extreme rise coincides with the industrial revolution.
Stop lying. You know damn well the only thing that was "intense" was that massive high you were on during class.
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Dec 16 2008, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Stop lying. You know damn well the only thing that was "intense" was that massive high you were on during class.
<



College he says
<
............i watched An Inconvenient Truth also
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Dec 16 2008, 12:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>College he says
<
............i watched An Inconvenient Truth also
<

If by "studying" climate change he means smoking a fat blunt, then I believe him.
<


The world is still flat. I'm not believing this fad about the world being round thing.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ROCKGOD01 @ Dec 16 2008, 12:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>A friend of mine owns a car lot and if you do the math the hybrid never really pays for itself vs. a traditional gas powered car. If you don't believe me ask someone who knows about the whole thing.
I priced out a Toyota Prius and the diesel burning Volkswagen Jetta TDI this summer and I know for a fact that eventually they will pay for themselves. I have the spreadsheet built on my home computer so I can come up with all the numbers later. Based on this summer's gas prices the Jetta paid for itself in gas savings alone in 17 years and the Prius had nearly 50 percent more savings. The savings are probably quite diminished now but I could check it out when I get home. Additionally, regardless of fuel prices, being able to get approximately double the mileage of your traditional gasoline powered car would likely provide enough savings within four years to cover the hybrid premium.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ROCKGOD01 @ Dec 16 2008, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>But the climate thing dude your so wrong and have no real evidence. There hasn't been one person to put forth real evidence. Plus the religion thing is a pain in the ... but if you don't believe that is fine. IF you do then great. As long as you don't try and ram your .... down someone elses throat. Oh and as far as the dinosaurs the creationists have no problem with that. They have a problem with carbon dating. Scientists carbon dated a live penguin and found it was 150 thousand years old. It was really like 5. LOL.
I'm glad we've cleared that up.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Dec 16 2008, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Stop lying. You know damn well the only thing that was "intense" was that massive high you were on during class.
<

Sometimes my hangovers/morning drunks were a bit intense.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Dec 16 2008, 02:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>College he says
<
............i watched An Inconvenient Truth also
<

You think I could honestly watch a three hour segment narrarated by Al Gore?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Dec 16 2008, 03:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You think I could honestly watch a three hour segment narrarated by Al Gore?

It's actually very very good and informative.. made me want to recycle...
 
I love you guys. And I sincerly hope we all don't die due to whatever the circumstances may be so we can still enjoy what is left our OUR sport moto gp.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ROCKGOD01 @ Dec 16 2008, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I love you guys. And I sincerly hope we all don't die due to whatever the circumstances may be so we can still enjoy what is left our OUR sport moto gp.


I hate you all and hope every single one of you suffer a horrible death
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Dec 16 2008, 11:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I can always count on you to say something like this. (I'll be nice and not say 'dumb').

I suppose evolution is 'just' a theory too. But creationism has a hard time explaining these mythical creatures called dinosaurs, especially when pesky bones keep being unearthed.

Creationism says

1. Light
2. Separation of water and atmosphere
3. Creating land from beneath the waters
4. Moon/stars
5. Fish and birds
6. Land animals
7. Rest

If you realize it was an educated guess made 10,000 years ago by people who believed they were divinely inspired, it's pretty good.
<


The only people who believed dinosaurs aren't part of creation are the modern religiologues who have been writing superfluous texts and teachings for centuries.

Religion is for the question: How did something come from nothing? Why am I here? Science doesn't even bother with those questions most of the time, so to suggest the science disproves something that is infinitely more complex is silly. If I claimed math disproves love people would have a pretty good chuckle. Saying science disproves religious philosophy is also good for a chuckle.

Early man was incapable of understanding things he hadn't discovered. What does that say about the present? Science today will turn out like the science of years gone by---wrong, incomplete, quaint.

Many religions (Christianity especially) are existential philosophies. Choice, not facts, are the only things that can modify or destroy them.

Anywho, the only ........ thing about climate change is the people who believe it is a relatively recent phenomenon. Climate change allowed humans to exist and the warming of the planet has allowed us to thrive.

What is the effect of global warming that makes it so awful?-----we have no idea. History seems to suggest it will make our lives better.
<
Pollution reduction is the only moral imperative behind climate change. It has existed for a long time. It is not a recently held belief exclusive to one party, ideology, culture, etc.

Climate change is just a sensational ruse enacted to give political power to certain individuals and to make us aware of things we should already be aware of.

1. Pollution is bad
2. The earth has been getting warmer for hundreds of thousands of years and we need to prepare for change.

I'm so glad we have a group of enlightened zealots to relay these facts to us. I'm even happier that we've decided to help them further their agenda by giving them 2.2 trillion dollars per annum, a license to kill, and a network of cages to store people in if they disagree.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Dec 16 2008, 01:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I priced out a Toyota Prius and the diesel burning Volkswagen Jetta TDI this summer and I know for a fact that eventually they will pay for themselves. I have the spreadsheet built on my home computer so I can come up with all the numbers later. Based on this summer's gas prices the Jetta paid for itself in gas savings alone in 17 years and the Prius had nearly 50 percent more savings. The savings are probably quite diminished now but I could check it out when I get home. Additionally, regardless of fuel prices, being able to get approximately double the mileage of your traditional gasoline powered car would likely provide enough savings within four years to cover the hybrid premium.

If you take two identical cars (size, weight, drag, power, etc.) the hybrid will always be more efficient because it uses energy recapture technology. Energy recapture is amazing, but giant batteries are not the only recapture techniques.

Furthermore, hybrids are purchased to reduce pollution and extend mileage, but they aren't particularly good at either unless you foil them against the inefficiency of our current excess. As soon as fuel demand drops and engine sizes get smaller, hybrids become useless.

If you evaluate a hybrid only against what currently exists they look amazing (as long as you forget we will be throwing 400lbs of toxic chemicals into a landfill or recycling giant batteries at enormous cost). Once you put them through the rigors of a true strategic analysis, they are simply wasteful toys. Reducing weight, engine size, and drag while adding very simple, cheap, carbon capture technology is far more efficient. Those technologies are also more useful in a greater variety of operating environments so they are better for consumers.

Recapture is fantastic, but their are far greater forces at play that are attempting to create cheap, renewable, clean-burning fuels. When they succeed, we will be left with nothing but landfills full of toxic batteries if we continue to allow the government to sponsor hybrid development.

Hybrids are incredible given that nothing will change.
<
So hybrids are useless. Biofuels will win in the end as long as we tell the government to shove it. There are too many relatively high yield "garbage" plants that aren't part of our food supply. Furthermore, we already have people synthesizing large quantities of clean petroleum products by using bacteria and micro-organisms.

<
Much cooler and more useful, imo. Of course the government will never push these technologies because all you need is land and simple refining facilities. The United States would have no competitive advantage in such low-tech solutions.

That's how it works I'm afraid. The REAL benefit to hybrids is that only developed nations have the technological means and the workforce to produce them. Why do you think it is so important to bail out Ford and GM? Besides propping up the UAW, do you think Uncle Sam is going to lose that monstrous inefficient pile of future tax revenues to the Japanese?
<


Sorry, I'm in an off topic mood today
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Dec 16 2008, 04:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If you take two identical cars (size, weight, drag, power, etc.) the hybrid will always be more efficient because it uses energy recapture technology. Energy recapture is amazing, but giant batteries are not the only recapture techniques.

Furthermore, hybrids are purchased to reduce pollution and extend mileage, but they aren't particularly good at either unless you foil them against the inefficiency of our current excess. As soon as fuel demand drops and engine sizes get smaller, hybrids become useless.

If you evaluate a hybrid only against what currently exists they look amazing (as long as you forget we will be throwing 400lbs of toxic chemicals into a landfill or recycling giant batteries at enormous cost). Once you put them through the rigors of a true strategic analysis, they are simply wasteful toys. Reducing weight, engine size, and drag while adding very simple, cheap, carbon capture technology is far more efficient. Those technologies are also more useful in a greater variety of operating environments so they are better for consumers.

Recapture is fantastic, but their are far greater forces at play that are attempting to create cheap, renewable, clean-burning fuels. When they succeed, we will be left with nothing but landfills full of toxic batteries if we continue to allow the government to sponsor hybrid development.

Hybrids are incredible given that nothing will change.
<
So hybrids are useless. Biofuels will win in the end as long as we tell the government to shove it. There are too many relatively high yield "garbage" plants that aren't part of our food supply. Furthermore, we already have people synthesizing large quantities of clean petroleum products by using bacteria and micro-organisms.

<
Much cooler and more useful, imo. Of course the government will never push these technologies because all you need is land and simple refining facilities. The United States would have no competitive advantage in such low-tech solutions.

That's how it works I'm afraid. The REAL benefit to hybrids is that only developed nations have the technological means and the workforce to produce them. Why do you think it is so important to bail out Ford and GM? Besides propping up the UAW, do you think Uncle Sam is going to lose that monstrous inefficient pile of future tax revenues to the Japanese?
<


Sorry, I'm in an off topic mood today
<

I agree wholeheartedly that there are many other alternative energy solutions out there that are far more practical than hybrids, ethanol or wind energy. My point is simply that given today's market choices, you can't do much better in cost reduction than driving a hybrid.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Dec 16 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Creationism says

1. Light
2. Separation of water and atmosphere
3. Creating land from beneath the waters
4. Moon/stars
5. Fish and birds
6. Land animals
7. Rest

If you realize it was an educated guess made 10,000 years ago by people who believed they were divinely inspired, it's pretty good.
<


The only people who believed dinosaurs aren't part of creation are the modern religiologues who have been writing superfluous texts and teachings for centuries.

Religion is for the question: How did something come from nothing? Why am I here? Science doesn't even bother with those questions most of the time, so to suggest the science disproves something that is infinitely more complex is silly. If I claimed math disproves love people would have a pretty good chuckle. Saying science disproves religious philosophy is also good for a chuckle.

Early man was incapable of understanding things he hadn't discovered. What does that say about the present? Science today will turn out like the science of years gone by---wrong, incomplete, quaint.

Many religions (Christianity especially) are existential philosophies. Choice, not facts, are the only things that can modify or destroy them.

Anywho, the only ........ thing about climate change is the people who believe it is a relatively recent phenomenon. Climate change allowed humans to exist and the warming of the planet has allowed us to thrive.

What is the effect of global warming that makes it so awful?-----we have no idea. History seems to suggest it will make our lives better.
<
Pollution reduction is the only moral imperative behind climate change. It has existed for a long time. It is not a recently held belief exclusive to one party, ideology, culture, etc.

Climate change is just a sensational ruse enacted to give political power to certain individuals and to make us aware of things we should already be aware of.

1. Pollution is bad
2. The earth has been getting warmer for hundreds of thousands of years and we need to prepare for change.

I'm so glad we have a group of enlightened zealots to relay these facts to us. I'm even happier that we've decided to help them further their agenda by giving them 2.2 trillion dollars per annum, a license to kill, and a network of cages to store people in if they disagree.


I think a ceratin Jumkie has been secretly investing his life savings in this http://www.generationim.com/. He sure is passionate about the Goracle's scam.

Folks,quit being led around by the nose.We came out of a friggin ice age.If the earth hadnt warmed,we wouldnt be here.Of course it warmed,Now,in the last 2 years,100 years of warming has been deduced to nothing.Look it up,it is a fact.The ones pushing doomsday are the ones who will milk the cash cow.Click on the link above,then go do a google search.Follow the money and the truth shall set you free.
 
Jumkie,Scientist are jumping off of global warming like rats off a sinking ship.Nasa has already said the earth is cooling.This is another Enron in the making.Remember what they did,trade energy credits.Its the same scam with a different name.


NASA satellites found that last winter's Arctic Sea ice covered 2 million square kilometers (772,000 square miles) more than the last three years' average. It also was 10 to 20 centimeters (about 4-8 inches) thicker than in 2007. The ice between Canada and southwest Greenland also spread dramatically. "We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south," Denmark's Meteorological Institute stated.

"Snows Return to Mount Kilimanjaro," cheered a January 21 International Herald Tribune headline, as Africa also defies the "warming" narrative.

While neither anecdotes nor one year's statistics confirm global cooling, a decade of data contradicts the "melting planet" rhetoric that heats Capitol Hill and America's newsrooms.

"The University of Alabama-Huntsville's analysis of data from satellites launched in 1979 showed a warming trend of 0.14 degrees Centigrade (0.25 Fahrenheit) per decade," Joseph D'Aleo, the Weather Channel's first Director of Meteorology, told me. "This warmth peaked in 1998, and the temperature trend the last decade has been flat, even as CO2 has increased 5.5 percent. Cooling began in 2002. Over the last six years, global temperatures from satellite and land-temperature gauges have cooled (-0.14 F and -0.22 F, respectively). Ocean buoys have echoed that slight cooling since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deployed them in 2003."

These researchers are not alone. They are among a rising tide of scientists who question the so-called "global warming" theory. Some further argue that global cooling merits urgent concern.

"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," 100 prestigious geologists, physicists, meteorologists, and other scientists wrote United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon last December. They also noted "today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998."

In a December 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority-staff report, some 400 scientists -- from such respected institutions as Princeton, the National Academy of Sciences, the University of London, and Paris' Pasteur Institute -- declared their independence from the pro-warming "conventional wisdom."

"Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas," asserted climatologist Luc Debontridder of Belgium's Royal Meteorological Institute. "It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

AccuWeather's Expert Senior Forecaster Joe .......i has stated: "People are concerned that 50 years from now, it will be warm beyond a point of no return. My concern is almost opposite, that it's cold and getting colder."

And on Wednesday, the respected journal, Nature, indicated that Earth's climactic cycles have stopped global warming through 2015.

If nothing else, all this obliterates the rampant lie that "the scientific debate on global warming is over." That debate rages on.

Assuming that the very serious scientists cited here are correct, the "inconvenient truth" about global-warming is inconveniently false. If so, mankind should chill out and turn our thinking right side up.

This is the latest government release
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...0b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Take the time to read it
 
Cool debate guys... Off season rocks!

Personally I believe that most people's judgement is shaped by the culture/society they grew up and were educated (indoctrinated?) in. People at "sustenance" levels of life (3/4s of the world's population or more) aren't really much bothered by the impending doom of "global warming/climate change".

Austin - we're more or less the same age and when I was in junior high in the 70s the next big thing was the next ice age. Then in Uni in the early 80's (Environmental Studies Campus, University of Waterloo, Urban Planning & Geography major) they started to talk about "global warming" (which has since been re-branded "climate change" to broaden its questionable impact). I've been very curious about this whole debate since then and I have come to these conclusions:
1. If you are conceited/religious enough to believe that we, as human beings, are the sole and/or major affecters of this glorious orb we call mother earth - which has survived and prospered (and suffered much greater calamity) for far longer than the human imagination will ever grasp - then you are not a scientist in the classical definition, you are a technocrat/zealot without vision or imagination.
2. The only reason we fear "global warming/climate change" as humans is self preservation. The same, if not more devastating effects than the "threat" of "global warming/climate change" can be initiated by a multitude of "natural" causes, such as, solar flares, meteorite collision, AND the natural geo-dynamics of the earth and solar system themselves. It has happened before in the history of the earth. Most recently eliminating the dinosaurs - prior to that, as far as we can understand, providing "global renewal" - think of it as "urban renewal" on a grander scale - every few hundred millennia (ice-ages, anyone?). Millennia - got that - and we've been studying "global warming/climate change" data for a HUNDRED years and you're apparently fine with that limited data set? Furthermore we would not exist as a species without this type of change, and the earth itself will continue to exist and sustain life - possibly greater life and life-forms, than exist today - long after our sorry ego-driven carcasses are gone.
3. Be it the divine whims of a creator or a form of natural selection we as human beings must realize that we are not the be-all-to-end-all and our time will come. We can do the all right things to sustain our existence but there is no way we can overcome the forces of the universe which (laughably) began with what we now call the "big bang" (analogy: microscope technology since Galileo - we can now use electron microscopes to see down to DNA structure level and can DETECT the existence of other "invisible" particle such as quarks - do we not know that when we have the "ability" to look closer we "discover" something before the "bang"?).

Anyway I do what I can to be a "good human" (although I do have a penchant for two-smokes, be they bikes, chain saws or outboards) but I definitely do not believe that I or we are the masters of this domain.
 

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions

Back
Top