Global Warming: The New Religion

[Njaco]

Wizard, I did. Thats what made me remember. There was another similar show on a few years ago but was more comprehensive and understandable.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Wizard, I did. Thats what made me remember. There was another similar show on a few years ago but was more comprehensive and understandable.

It was the same show I watched it again

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Oreo

In that case, could we see it happening once a year somewhere on earth to this day?

Oh yes, this happens very often, see the down syndrome for instance. This of course not a favourable mutation, but is shows you that it is possible.

Originally Posted by Oreo

Now two more big problems I have with evolution:

1. Supposedly life started as one-celled organisms reproducing asexually and progressed upward to multi-celled organisms reproducing sexually. How did that first little one-celled critter, swimming around with its millions of little partners, all of a sudden develop into a multi-celled creature? Please explain the jump for me, step by step. How many cells are there in the smallest multi-cell organism? Are there organisms with two cells in a natural state? Four? How do you become a multi-celled creature with sexual reproduction? Oh, maybe it takes several million years to develop a male, but there are no females, so the male is unable to reproduce, and so it dies without procreating. Maybe 100 years later in the same mud puddle, a female all of a sudden comes into being, but there are no males around, so the female cannot reproduce, and dies without passing on her genetic information. Now, was there only ONE time in prehistory where a male something and a female something all of a sudden came together, had exactly the right chemistry (the female did not eat the male, or anything) and BAM they had babies, or does this happen regularly that asexually reproducing organisms mutate into sexually reproducing ones? I have never yet seen anyone explain that one. I bet you'll give it a shot, though Marcel! I'm anxious to see what you have on it!

You keep repeating that it should be all of a sudden, which is of course not the case. The word evolution means exactly the opposite. BTW did you ever consider that there are mutiple species that reproduce both, sexually and a-sexually? Most plants for instance. There are also many two sided species, being both male and female. There are also species that can change gender during their life. So there are many in-betweens, still conform the theory.
But you're still not attacking the theory, which only covers the method that causes biodiversity.
I hope you're not taking this personally as I don't want to offend you. I've never attacked your point of view here and am just providing you with an alternative point.

[JugBR]

No Sunshine for Global Warming Skeptics: Scientific American

Scientists Predict Extinctions from Global Warming: Scientific American

Which U.S. Cities Contribute Most to Global Warming?: Scientific American

Air Pollution Induces DNA Mutations in Mice: Scientific American

damm commies !

[JugBR]

before someone miss understand my last post here i have to say i just put some links about global warming because i think it would be better for the discussion. i said i wouldnt post here, but since daniel goes out, i believe is better to somebody post defending the global warming theory to improve the topic.

i dont think im special or most important than nobody. even smart. just keeping the discussion warming, like earth.

its not about right or wrong, its about show some points of view...

[Marcel]

Hi JugBR, I appreciate the contribution. I too have already posted many evidence of global warming being real. The discussion is about if humans are responsible for it and this discussion is inconclusive yet. There we drifted of, discussing the pro's and cons of science

[renrich]

One factor perhaps not appreciated in this discussion is how the left has latched onto the so called environmental issue as a means to gain power. Let me hasten to add that I am speaking only about the US, not other countries, although my suspicion is that all leftists are following the same battle plan. This plan is similar to the plan that Jesse Jackson has used to gain and hold power. He uses the issue of racism which resonates with almost all Blacks to achieve a position of power. Jackson screams "racism, racism," and he gains the support of most Blacks even if little racism actually still exists in the US except for reverse racism. The left began to lose the support of their power base when the "oppressed worker" began to become too affluent and the power and strength of the labor unions began to decline. The left then needed an issue which would help them regain the power base which had begun to erode because working class people were voting Republican in large numbers during the Reagan period. Keep in mind that the left, which is primarily composed of elitist individuals that believe that the rest of us don't have the brains or judgment to run our own lives and that markets and market decisions are too sloppy and unpredictable, wants a massive centralised government to regulate and control almost every decision that the citizen makes in his life. The left wants to control where and whether we drill, what type of car we drive or whether we drive at all and what fuel it uses, what type of housing we have(new urbanism) what we eat(no fast food) the type of schooling and who gets schooled, etc.etc.etc. Cleverly, the left decided the new issue to gain power and control was environmentalism. Almost all people want clean air and clean water and most people think the world is better off with caribou, polar bears and other creatures still around, so environmentalism resonates with most. The secret is that through the Clean Water Act, the EPA, the Endangered Species Act and so on, the left can shut down growth and development and begin to control all the aspects of our life. The new religion of Global Warming is part of their plan.

[trackend]

IMO We all inhabit this planet so what I do effects everyone else. a simplistic example is seat belt laws, freedom would still allow you to not wear a belt but in most countrys it has become law, people had to be told to be sensible because when an accident happened the consequences cascaded through and effected society as a whole .
If some regulation on polution is not agreed upon (which will mean all of us changing what we do) I really do believe we are going to leave our great grand kids a crappy enviromental legacy.
I do not believe that a political agender lies behind what is being put forward (either from the right or left wing) for this to be so it would mean a global conspircy, the governments cant even agree on things like GM crops, so when the majority reach a consensus on global warming I believe it has some very recognisable validity.

[Njaco]

Track, I agree with your basic premise but can we really legislate intelligence and common sense? The only reason that seat belts laws are in place is because of the massive lawsuits brought about by lawyers and health care costs from inflated claims.

If you have an accident nowadays you're almost guaranteed to make money off of it.

[renrich]

As I said in the beginning of the post, I am not claiming that the left in other countries is doing what the left in our country is doing. To prove my point all one needs to do is look at the dimocrats stand on energy in the US. It is absolutely ridiculous for us to not drill where there are abundant supplies of oil and gas. To pretend that not drilling is because of environmental concerns is an absolute lie, which the dimocrats are experts at. The environment off the coast of Texas and Louisiana is not ruined where they have been drilling for decades. To say that no nuclear electrical generating plants shall be built is idiocy when in Japan and France, to name two, most of the electricity is generated by nuclear. The dimocrats are using the "environment" to pursue their agenda which is to destroy the free enterprise system and control everyone's lives.

[Marcel]

As I said Ren, this whole issue has been used by many. In my country as well.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Track, I agree with your basic premise but can we really legislate intelligence and common sense? The only reason that seat belts laws are in place is because of the massive lawsuits brought about by lawyers and health care costs from inflated claims.

If you have an accident nowadays you're almost guaranteed to make money off of it.

That only counts in the US. This is still not the case here.

[renrich]

Seat belt laws are a good example of how one government excess leads to another. If government is responsible for health care then they say that you must wear a seat belt for the common good and to keep health care costs down. The infringement of liberties keep piling up.

[JugBR]

seat belt laws exist because before that there was too many deaths in the roads.

since the avarage citzen was uncapable to take care yourself, the government must create a seat belt law to decrease the number of deaths in roads.

its the action/reaction logic.

[Njaco]

since the avarage citzen was uncapable to take care yourself, the government must create a seat belt law to decrease the number of deaths in roads.

No, you make sure everybody knows and is educated on how to drive a car. The minimal requirement for a license nowadays allows people's personnal habits to dictate how they drive. Putting on make-up, reading the paper, no turn signals, on and on. Instead of seat bets how about making sure people don't have accidents in the first place.