Politics Global Warming - My thoughts/questions

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Bees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varroa_destructor

Varroa destructor is an external parasitic mite that attacks the honey bees Apis cerana and Apis mellifera. The disease caused by the mites is called varroosis.

Varroa destructor can only reproduce in a honey bee colony. It attaches to the body of the bee and weakens the bee by sucking hemolymph. In this process, RNA viruses such as the deformed wing virus (DWV) spread to bees. A significant mite infestation will lead to the death of a honey bee colony, usually in the late autumn through early spring. The Varroa mite is the parasite with the most pronounced economic impact on the beekeeping industry. It may be a contributing factor to colony collapse disorder, as research shows it is the main factor for collapsed colonies in Ontario, Canada[1] and Hawaii, USA.[2]

BUT...

Aliens AND global warming.
 
Denny Crane said:
Your articles are cherry picked data about a few species. You don't bother to balance out the claims in the left wing blather you cite with other sources of equal or more expertise. You complain about my sources, yet you do nothing to refute any of the facts presented in them (because you can't?).

I posted one link that showed you that one of the species supposedly in danger is at an all time high in population and by weight. The sources for your articles don't count those fish because they're young.

I posted another link about how the government and it's models were based upon how many fish they could catch while the pro fisherman in the same boat with the same equipment caught many times more fish. That would mean the government's estimate is way below what the reality is. You know, they sample/count fish where the school of fish aren't.

You question the integrity (or whatever) of the sources of my links, while you post links with Global Warming in the title. That's good for a huge laugh. Two times the SCARE in one article! Someone is going to get extra funding out of that one.

Yet you mock the New England Aquarium as a source for some reason. They're not a fishing organization as you claim are my sources.

Most of your articles talk about overfishing of a handful of species.

Overfishing. So for hundreds of years (at least 400, more like 500) they've been catching fish. They've not been catching enough of certain fish to dwindle the population to 5% over that time. For the most part, they catch an excess of the abundance of fish and leave plenty to allow the fish to procreate and maintain an abundance. Only for a few years did they overfish, and recently, and under government approval. Even then, the population losses aren't fully explained by fishing and the scientists are at a loss as to why.

You said the oceans are dead. That's complete and utter bullshit.

While a handful of species seem to have been overfished for a short period, most of the populations recover and do fine. When the government reduces the limit on the number of fish that can be caught (by weight), they increase the limit on other fish that are plentiful. Plentiful as in, the oceans aren't dead.

MARIS' article is good for a laugh, too, but at least it suggests other possibilities for fish dying other than fishing. A disease can wipe out a huge chunk of a population. Or a lack of plankton in normal feeding grounds causes starvation.

I don't think you're open to the reality.
Click to expand...

I kept asking you to read what you are posting, you're a smart man. You've taken a statistic class or two. Instead you just post headlines thinking they mean something.

I'll break it down for you like I would to a child, lets say there are 20 members of the Denny family. I walk into your house and kill 90% of you. That leaves 2 members of the Denny family left. Now technically your family isn't dead but getting 18 out of 20 of you is enough for me to claim that I killed the Denny clan. Lots of people would look at that and agree. Killing 90% of the Dennys means they're dead. But one of the two Dennys has a baby. You jump up and down, release press announcements with lots of pretty graphs. "No, the Denny family isn't dead. Everything is fine. Look, we just increased by 50%. 50%! Woo Hoo! We're thriving! Everything is fine!"

Your 50% doesn't mean much. Your pro industry links don't mean much. Seeing a bird eat a fish doesn't mean much. Posting links to sites that describe how tasty fish are and provides recipes to cook them doesn't mean much.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I kept asking you to read what you are posting, you're a smart man. You've taken a statistic class or two. Instead you just post headlines thinking they mean something.

I'll break it down for you like I would to a child, lets say there are 20 members of the Denny family. I walk into your house and kill 90% of you. That leaves 2 members of the Denny family left. Now technically your family isn't dead but getting 18 out of 20 of you is enough for me to claim that I killed the Denny clan. Lots of people would look at that and agree. Killing 90% of the Dennys means they're dead. But one of the two Dennys has a baby. You jump up and down, release press announcements with lots of pretty graphs. "No, the Denny family isn't dead. Everything is fine. Look, we just increased by 50%. 50%! Woo Hoo! We're thriving! Everything is fine!"

Your 50% doesn't mean much. Your pro industry links don't mean much. Seeing a bird eat a fish doesn't mean much. Posting links to sites that describe how tasty fish are and provides recipes to cook them doesn't mean much.
Click to expand...

I do read them. It's funny how my links aren't one sided.

Aliens. My links saying otherwise aren't valid.

You said the oceans are dead. They're not. Or the birds wouldn't be eating anything out of them, now would they.
 
Denny Crane said:
There are no fish because you say the ocean is dead.

How can that be?
Click to expand...

So in joking around with Brianiac I said the oceans are dead. You follow that up with, "Everything is fine, I saw a bird eat a fish." Which statement/position is closer to the truth? I would say mine. Killing 90% of the large fish in the ocean is closer to dead then to everything is fine.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
So in joking around with Brianiac I said the oceans are dead. You follow that up with, "Everything is fine, I saw a bird eat a fish." Which statement/position is closer to the truth? I would say mine. Killing 90% of the large fish in the ocean is closer to dead then to everything fine.
Click to expand...

Joking?

Wow.

More like backpedal.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I kept asking you to read what you are posting, you're a smart man. You've taken a statistic class or two. Instead you just post headlines thinking they mean something.

I'll break it down for you like I would to a child, lets say there are 20 members of the Denny family. I walk into your house and kill 90% of you. That leaves 2 members of the Denny family left. Now technically your family isn't dead but getting 18 out of 20 of you is enough for me to claim that I killed the Denny clan. Lots of people would look at that and agree. Killing 90% of the Dennys means they're dead. But one of the two Dennys has a baby. You jump up and down, release press announcements with lots of pretty graphs. "No, the Denny family isn't dead. Everything is fine. Look, we just increased by 50%. 50%! Woo Hoo! We're thriving! Everything is fine!"

Your 50% doesn't mean much. Your pro industry links don't mean much. Seeing a bird eat a fish doesn't mean much. Posting links to sites that describe how tasty fish are and provides recipes to cook them doesn't mean much.
Click to expand...

But killing Denny's family doesn't make the human population dead bro. Using large fish doesn't account for the millions of species of life in oceans. Saying the oceans are dead and using reference of a small group of species in the ocean to prove it doesn't work.

Now under your analogy, if we killed all countries except for Cuba, then we can say humanity is pretty close to being dead.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Not backpedal. Just clarifying, defining what we are talking about. Again, 90% of the large fish are dead vs everything is fine.
Click to expand...

You realize you proved one of my main points, right?

Bogus data (usually based upon faulty models) and bogus associations of cause to effect where no such relationship exists or can be proven. All this leads to outrageous bullshit claims (the oceans are dead).
 
Denny Crane said:
You realize you proved one of my main points, right?

Bogus data (usually based upon faulty models) and bogus associations of cause to effect where no such relationship exists or can be proven. All this leads to outrageous bullshit claims (the oceans are dead).
Click to expand...

Compared to your outrageous claim that everything is alright because you saw a bird eat a fish?
 
OSUBlazerfan said:
I'll start by stating that I've been a denier and sort of an agnostic to the issue because of my religious beliefs, "if its what God desires to happen, it will happen", but I started thinking about it more from a non-religious angle and I think I'm changing my mind on this issue.
Click to expand...

If God wants us to die from global warming, then we should not fight His will. I'm going to sit in my chair all day and get drunk, because if God wants me to do anything to resist nature, he will get me out of my chair.

If God wants crime to stop, he will stop it. The government should not do anything to resist anything.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Compared to your outrageous claim that everything is alright because you saw a bird eat a fish?
Click to expand...

I didn't say "alright" now did I?

I said the oceans aren't dead. Proof of life is proof they're not.
 
jlprk said:
If God wants us to die from global warming, then we should not fight His will. I'm going to sit in my chair all day and get drunk, because if God wants me to do anything to resist nature, he will get me out of my chair.

If God wants crime to stop, he will stop it. The government should not do anything to resist anything.
Click to expand...
But that's not what God said. It could be how you misinterpret the word maybe?

God made it clear that we must be proactive with our talents and grace.

3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

Matthew 13 (2-17)
 
Few if any of these articles posted are interesting. Several years ago, I went into La Push on the mouth of the Quillayute river to seek refuge from a storm coming from the Southwest.
Interesting place, the local there harvest a whale a year and a sea lion or two, I don't know how many. Anyway, I bought a couple crabs from them and a bit later an old guy stopped by with some smoked salmon he said I should try. Damn! it was super. I asked him why it was so good? Seal Oil! They use seal oil in the marination before smoking the salmon.

About now, you are wondering, WTF? Too damn much science about about shit that doesn't matter is paid for by grants allocated to mold the voter.
We now have but a few Native Americans permitted to kill a friggin seal or seal lion which eat the fish we all like and pay to raise. We now have more fucking seals and sea lions, than have ever existed because some do gooders got a law passed that only a hand full of people can eat the buggers. But we pay year after year to study some more on whats wrong with the salmon.
I remember when the smoked salmon on the coast tasted so much better than it does today, much like the Qullayutes' make. What happened?

Then I could tell you about squid clogging up the harbors on Monterey bay, but I shall save that for another day.
 
Last edited:
MarAzul said:
Few if any of these articles posted are interesting. Several years ago, I went into La Push on the mouth of the Quillayute river to seek refuge from a storm coming from the Southwest.
Interesting place, the local there harvest a whale a year and a sea lion or two, I don't know how many. Anyway, I bought a couple crabs from them and a bit later an old guy stopped by with some smokes salmon he said I should try. Damn! it was super. I asked him why it was so good? Seal Oil! They use seal oil in the marination before smoking the salmon.

About now, you are wondering, WTF? Too damn much science about about shit that does matter is paid for by grants allocated to mold the voter.
We now have but a few Native Americans permitted to kill a friggin seal or seal lion which eat the fish we all like and pay to raise. We now have more fucking seals and sea lions, than have ever existed because some do gooders got a law passed that only a hand full of people can eat the buggers. But we pay year after year to study some more on whats wrong with the salmon.
I remember when the smoked salmon on the coast tasted so much better than it does today, much like the Qullayutes' make. What happened?

Then I could tell you about squid clogging up the harbors on Monterey bay, but I shall save that for another day.
Click to expand...

Those do gooders are a freaken joke. They are so adamant about life "not human life of course", because they totally contradict themselves condoning woman have the free right to kill a baby in their womb. Those sick fucks are absurd. They don't even know what they really want. It's just hipster to be against killing animals, and not very hipster to be against abortion.
 
Some of the deforestation maps are pretty depressing, but the real issue is GMO high fructose corn syrup
 
Trees turn CO2 into O2 via photosynthesis. Removing thoysands of square miles of rainforest might tweak the atmospheric CO2 readings a tad.

Let's plant lots more trees instead of destroying society.
 
vMqCAMk.jpg
 
Thank goodness we don't need to fall all the trees to make a Navy now. We can use steel! But that takes coal.
But then, the Electric Steel Foundry does it with electricity. Try hooking that up to a windmill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top