collapse

Sponsor

* Welcome

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Sponsor

* Please Register to View and Post

Thanks for visiting Johnny Jungle forums. St. John's 6th Man.

You must register for an account to see community's content. It's FREE.

Author Topic: Kathy Griffin  (Read 5944 times)

Poison

  • The 6th Man
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2007
  • Posts: 14175
Re: Kathy Griffin
« Reply #80 on: June 06, 2017, 07:55:14 AM »
Climate change denial

Climate change is the biggest hoax since the Shroud of Turin.

Why say its a hoax? There was the Petition Project in 1997 but i would think it's fair to say that is outdated. Do you believe the more recent 97% Consensus on Global warming being caused by humans has no merit? Just curious how you came to that position.

Trump provides the only news source a Republican needs.

Foad

  • The 6th Man
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Posts: 3825
Re: Kathy Griffin
« Reply #81 on: June 06, 2017, 08:16:42 AM »
Why say its a hoax? There was the Petition Project in 1997 but i would think it's fair to say that is outdated. Do you believe the more recent 97% Consensus on Global warming being caused by humans has no merit? Just curious how you came to that position.

In the first place I don't believe there's a 97 percent consensus on global warming - they don't call it global warming anymore by the way, they call it climate change, because the warming stopped -  and even if there were I'd think it meaningless. There used to be a 97 percent consensus that the earth was the center of the universe and that there be monsters here at the end of the flat earth; so I don't care about consensus, even if it exists and it doesn't, and don't bother appending a link to some story that says the opposite because I've read them and the numbers are fudged.

I'm not expert about natural history, but I do know that the earth has been warming for 10 thousand years, since the last great ice age. I know that before that - before SUVs and cow farts - it was pretty warm, since there are aquatic marine fossils in the polar ice caps. I know that 150 years ago - right around the time we started keeping temperature records - the earth emerged from the Little Ice Age that followed the Medieval Warming period and that the way you emerge from an ice age is - wait for it - it gets warmer. Consider: if you started taking the temperature in your back yard in February and it averaged 20 degrees and in March it averaged 30 degrees and in April 60 degrees and in June 70 degrees without further information you'd predict that the temperature in your backyard would be 180 degrees in November and WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE. And you'd go outside and sacrifice a chicken to the weather gods, except there's no god anymore and odds are you need a permit to keep chickens, must less process them.

(Did you know that in Nixon's last state of the union address he was set to propose a US Soviet program of countermeasures to combat the coming ice age? The were removed at the last minute. These included building a giant dam across the Bering Sea to keep the freezing arctic waters out of the Pacific and a proposal to cover the ice caps in soot, black being attractive to heat. This was 40 years ago, as many years from today as Nixon was from Dachau and 100 years after the devil's great invention, the combustion engine. Climate "science" has gone in 50 years from predicting an ice age to predicting an inferno, not to worry though they have a fool proof plan to combat either contingency.)

So I guess it fair to say in the first place that I don't believe the science.

In the second, it seems to me oddly coincidental and a might peculiar that the very things that the left find abhorrent about western civilization - corporations, capitalism, individual liberty, progress, the usual bugbears - are the very things that cause man made climate change, and that the antidotes to AGW are the very things socialists would advocate for in its absence: more and bigger government; more and greater regulation; less freedom; less comfort; more sacrifice for the common good. It's uncanny. The very things the left rails against are the very things that are going to destroy the planet and the only thing that will save the planet is: their political agenda wrapped up in a nice little altruistic bow designed to make the armchair virtue signalers feel oh so very good about themselves and their sacrifices. #savingtheplanet #prius #solarpanels

In the third place - and this one is strange to even me - is the parallel between global warming and other flood myths: man failure to atone for his sins causes an angry god to bring the waters to cleanse the earth.

A charitable man gave away everything he had to the animals. His family deserted him, but when he gave his last meal to the god Ouende, Ouende rewarded him with three handfuls of flour which renewed itself and produced even greater riches. Then Ouende advised him to leave the area, and sent six months of rain to destroy his selfish neighbors. The descendants of the rich man became the present human race.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Every culture in the world has a flood myth. That's the mandingo's. Now the post moderns have one too and it fits the narrative: man is the villain of the post modern world.

And finally - because I'm even starting to bore myself - I don't know a lot of things for sure but I know this: everything everyone says most of the time is false and the louder and more vehement they are about its truth the more likely it is to be a lie. 

The earth is a vast epochal system subject to forces man does not even understand. The idea that he can control them is laughable and the only thing more absurd is the idea that it matters.


Foad

  • The 6th Man
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Posts: 3825
Re: Kathy Griffin
« Reply #82 on: June 06, 2017, 08:20:36 AM »
Trump provides the only news source a Republican needs.


Poison

  • The 6th Man
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2007
  • Posts: 14175
Re: Kathy Griffin
« Reply #83 on: June 06, 2017, 08:48:15 AM »
Why say its a hoax? There was the Petition Project in 1997 but i would think it's fair to say that is outdated. Do you believe the more recent 97% Consensus on Global warming being caused by humans has no merit? Just curious how you came to that position.

In the first place I don't believe there's a 97 percent consensus on global warming - they don't call it global warming anymore by the way, they call it climate change, because the warming stopped -  and even if there were I'd think it meaningless. There used to be a 97 percent consensus that the earth was the center of the universe and that there be monsters here at the end of the flat earth; so I don't care about consensus, even if it exists and it doesn't, and don't bother appending a link to some story that says the opposite because I've read them and the numbers are fudged.

I'm not expert about natural history, but I do know that the earth has been warming for 10 thousand years, since the last great ice age. I know that before that - before SUVs and cow farts - it was pretty warm, since there are aquatic marine fossils in the polar ice caps. I know that 150 years ago - right around the time we started keeping temperature records - the earth emerged from the Little Ice Age that followed the Medieval Warming period and that the way you emerge from an ice age is - wait for it - it gets warmer. Consider: if you started taking the temperature in your back yard in February and it averaged 20 degrees and in March it averaged 30 degrees and in April 60 degrees and in June 70 degrees without further information you'd predict that the temperature in your backyard would be 180 degrees in November and WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE. And you'd go outside and sacrifice a chicken to the weather gods, except there's no god anymore and odds are you need a permit to keep chickens, must less process them.

(Did you know that in Nixon's last state of the union address he was set to propose a US Soviet program of countermeasures to combat the coming ice age? The were removed at the last minute. These included building a giant dam across the Bering Sea to keep the freezing arctic waters out of the Pacific and a proposal to cover the ice caps in soot, black being attractive to heat. This was 40 years ago, as many years from today as Nixon was from Dachau and 100 years after the devil's great invention, the combustion engine. Climate "science" has gone in 50 years from predicting an ice age to predicting an inferno, not to worry though they have a fool proof plan to combat either contingency.)

So I guess it fair to say in the first place that I don't believe the science.

In the second, it seems to me oddly coincidental and a might peculiar that the very things that the left find abhorrent about western civilization - corporations, capitalism, individual liberty, progress, the usual bugbears - are the very things that cause man made climate change, and that the antidotes to AGW are the very things socialists would advocate for in its absence: more and bigger government; more and greater regulation; less freedom; less comfort; more sacrifice for the common good. It's uncanny. The very things the left rails against are the very things that are going to destroy the planet and the only thing that will save the planet is: their political agenda wrapped up in a nice little altruistic bow designed to make the armchair virtue signalers feel oh so very good about themselves and their sacrifices. #savingtheplanet #prius #solarpanels

In the third place - and this one is strange to even me - is the parallel between global warming and other flood myths: man failure to atone for his sins causes an angry god to bring the waters to cleanse the earth.

A charitable man gave away everything he had to the animals. His family deserted him, but when he gave his last meal to the god Ouende, Ouende rewarded him with three handfuls of flour which renewed itself and produced even greater riches. Then Ouende advised him to leave the area, and sent six months of rain to destroy his selfish neighbors. The descendants of the rich man became the present human race.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Every culture in the world has a flood myth. That's the mandingo's. Now the post moderns have one too and it fits the narrative: man is the villain of the post modern world.

And finally - because I'm even starting to bore myself - I don't know a lot of things for sure but I know this: everything everyone says most of the time is false and the louder and more vehement they are about its truth the more likely it is to be a lie. 

The earth is a vast epochal system subject to forces man does not even understand. The idea that he can control them is laughable and the only thing more absurd is the idea that it matters.


Bullshit. All of it. As always.

SJUFAN

  • The 6th Man
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2010
  • Posts: 1152
Re: Kathy Griffin
« Reply #84 on: June 06, 2017, 08:03:24 PM »
The earth is a vast epochal system subject to forces man does not even understand.

You make some valid points. One can argue that climate change isn't an exact science, however ozone depletion seems to be a more widely excepted concept. That is not caused by cow farts, but man made halocarbons, allegedly. Now one could also be skeptical about the science behind that as well but what cannot be debated is that fossil fuels are not infinite. It would be in the best interest for us to invest in reusable energy. If not for climate change, or ozone depletion, then for national security. It also wouldn't hurt to be in the fore front of the future of the energy industry.

I'm not a fan of government using policy to destroy a industry because it may not align with their personal agenda especially while ignoring the families that their policies are harming when it may not even be necessary. There is a happy medium, it would be nice if our leaders found it.

Foad

  • The 6th Man
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Posts: 3825
Re: Kathy Griffin
« Reply #85 on: June 06, 2017, 08:51:17 PM »
The earth is a vast epochal system subject to forces man does not even understand.

You make some valid points. One can argue that climate change isn't an exact science, however ozone depletion seems to be a more widely excepted concept. That is not caused by cow farts, but man made halocarbons, allegedly. Now one could also be skeptical about the science behind that as well but what cannot be debated is that fossil fuels are not infinite. It would be in the best interest for us to invest in reusable energy. If not for climate change, or ozone depletion, then for national security. It also wouldn't hurt to be in the fore front of the future of the energy industry.

I'm not a fan of government using policy to destroy a industry because it may not align with their personal agenda especially while ignoring the families that their policies are harming when it may not even be necessary. There is a happy medium, it would be nice if our leaders found it.


Yes, look, absolutely, my skepticism extends in both (all) directions. All things considered I'd be all in favor of solar power, if it worked. I'd be all in favor of tidal power, if it worked. And I'd be more in favor of it if those opposed to fossil fuels were in favor of nuclear power, which works, which supplies 70 percent of the power in even a shiity fvcking horrible country like France, without a single attributable death. But there's no one on the left who advocates for that, a safe cheap abundant power source, because it conflicts with their agenda.   

There was not too long ago (geologically speaking) a vast chestnut forest spreading from Maine to Michigan that had supported a population of native americans forever. Some rich bastard, a vanderbilt or something, returning in the 19th century from vacation in Japan, imported a Nipon chestnut variety and planted it on fifth avenue; his specimens destroyed that ancient forest in 25 years, containing as it did a blight to which the US variety was not immune. The Great Plains were once a great primeval forest that was destroyed by slashing and burning by native peoples over the thousands of years. All of these behaviors of course effect the environment and eventually the climate. But: is that not evolution? Is that not science? Is not the death if those chestnuts the survival of the fittest? 

Question: why is the way the world is RIGHT NOW the best way the world is. Why is not something that occurs in the course of things not better? To think otherwise seems to me the stupidest conclusions. If the theory of evolution is true - and there's no evidence that it it is and in fact there's evidence that it's not - then why is what is what should have been.  What isn't, it just is.

Marillac

  • The 6th Man
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Posts: 7719
Re: Kathy Griffin
« Reply #86 on: June 07, 2017, 04:54:40 PM »
The earth is a vast epochal system subject to forces man does not even understand.

You make some valid points. One can argue that climate change isn't an exact science, however ozone depletion seems to be a more widely excepted concept. That is not caused by cow farts, but man made halocarbons, allegedly. Now one could also be skeptical about the science behind that as well but what cannot be debated is that fossil fuels are not infinite. It would be in the best interest for us to invest in reusable energy. If not for climate change, or ozone depletion, then for national security. It also wouldn't hurt to be in the fore front of the future of the energy industry.

I'm not a fan of government using policy to destroy a industry because it may not align with their personal agenda especially while ignoring the families that their policies are harming when it may not even be necessary. There is a happy medium, it would be nice if our leaders found it.


Yes, look, absolutely, my skepticism extends in both (all) directions. All things considered I'd be all in favor of solar power, if it worked. I'd be all in favor of tidal power, if it worked. And I'd be more in favor of it if those opposed to fossil fuels were in favor of nuclear power, which works, which supplies 70 percent of the power in even a shiity fvcking horrible country like France, without a single attributable death. But there's no one on the left who advocates for that, a safe cheap abundant power source, because it conflicts with their agenda.   

There was not too long ago (geologically speaking) a vast chestnut forest spreading from Maine to Michigan that had supported a population of native americans forever. Some rich bastard, a vanderbilt or something, returning in the 19th century from vacation in Japan, imported a Nipon chestnut variety and planted it on fifth avenue; his specimens destroyed that ancient forest in 25 years, containing as it did a blight to which the US variety was not immune. The Great Plains were once a great primeval forest that was destroyed by slashing and burning by native peoples over the thousands of years. All of these behaviors of course effect the environment and eventually the climate. But: is that not evolution? Is that not science? Is not the death if those chestnuts the survival of the fittest? 

Question: why is the way the world is RIGHT NOW the best way the world is. Why is not something that occurs in the course of things not better? To think otherwise seems to me the stupidest conclusions. If the theory of evolution is true - and there's no evidence that it it is and in fact there's evidence that it's not - then why is what is what should have been.  What isn't, it just is.

Natural selection and evolution are things of the past. Man now dictates everything for better or worse.

Ez_Uzi

  • Accepted
  • **
  • Join Date: May 2011
  • Posts: 25
Re: Kathy Griffin
« Reply #87 on: June 07, 2017, 05:35:24 PM »
Why say its a hoax? There was the Petition Project in 1997 but i would think it's fair to say that is outdated. Do you believe the more recent 97% Consensus on Global warming being caused by humans has no merit? Just curious how you came to that position.

In the first place I don't believe there's a 97 percent consensus on global warming - they don't call it global warming anymore by the way, they call it climate change, because the warming stopped -  and even if there were I'd think it meaningless. There used to be a 97 percent consensus that the earth was the center of the universe and that there be monsters here at the end of the flat earth; so I don't care about consensus, even if it exists and it doesn't, and don't bother appending a link to some story that says the opposite because I've read them and the numbers are fudged.

I'm not expert about natural history, but I do know that the earth has been warming for 10 thousand years, since the last great ice age. I know that before that - before SUVs and cow farts - it was pretty warm, since there are aquatic marine fossils in the polar ice caps. I know that 150 years ago - right around the time we started keeping temperature records - the earth emerged from the Little Ice Age that followed the Medieval Warming period and that the way you emerge from an ice age is - wait for it - it gets warmer. Consider: if you started taking the temperature in your back yard in February and it averaged 20 degrees and in March it averaged 30 degrees and in April 60 degrees and in June 70 degrees without further information you'd predict that the temperature in your backyard would be 180 degrees in November and WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE. And you'd go outside and sacrifice a chicken to the weather gods, except there's no god anymore and odds are you need a permit to keep chickens, must less process them.

(Did you know that in Nixon's last state of the union address he was set to propose a US Soviet program of countermeasures to combat the coming ice age? The were removed at the last minute. These included building a giant dam across the Bering Sea to keep the freezing arctic waters out of the Pacific and a proposal to cover the ice caps in soot, black being attractive to heat. This was 40 years ago, as many years from today as Nixon was from Dachau and 100 years after the devil's great invention, the combustion engine. Climate "science" has gone in 50 years from predicting an ice age to predicting an inferno, not to worry though they have a fool proof plan to combat either contingency.)

So I guess it fair to say in the first place that I don't believe the science.

In the second, it seems to me oddly coincidental and a might peculiar that the very things that the left find abhorrent about western civilization - corporations, capitalism, individual liberty, progress, the usual bugbears - are the very things that cause man made climate change, and that the antidotes to AGW are the very things socialists would advocate for in its absence: more and bigger government; more and greater regulation; less freedom; less comfort; more sacrifice for the common good. It's uncanny. The very things the left rails against are the very things that are going to destroy the planet and the only thing that will save the planet is: their political agenda wrapped up in a nice little altruistic bow designed to make the armchair virtue signalers feel oh so very good about themselves and their sacrifices. #savingtheplanet #prius #solarpanels

In the third place - and this one is strange to even me - is the parallel between global warming and other flood myths: man failure to atone for his sins causes an angry god to bring the waters to cleanse the earth.

A charitable man gave away everything he had to the animals. His family deserted him, but when he gave his last meal to the god Ouende, Ouende rewarded him with three handfuls of flour which renewed itself and produced even greater riches. Then Ouende advised him to leave the area, and sent six months of rain to destroy his selfish neighbors. The descendants of the rich man became the present human race.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Every culture in the world has a flood myth. That's the mandingo's. Now the post moderns have one too and it fits the narrative: man is the villain of the post modern world.

And finally - because I'm even starting to bore myself - I don't know a lot of things for sure but I know this: everything everyone says most of the time is false and the louder and more vehement they are about its truth the more likely it is to be a lie. 

The earth is a vast epochal system subject to forces man does not even understand. The idea that he can control them is laughable and the only thing more absurd is the idea that it matters.

A vulgar display of anecdotes but who cares:


Pete88

  • Walk-On
  • ***
  • Join Date: Apr 2010
  • Posts: 286
Re: Kathy Griffin
« Reply #88 on: June 07, 2017, 05:57:01 PM »
Why say its a hoax? There was the Petition Project in 1997 but i would think it's fair to say that is outdated. Do you believe the more recent 97% Consensus on Global warming being caused by humans has no merit? Just curious how you came to that position.

In the first place I don't believe there's a 97 percent consensus on global warming - they don't call it global warming anymore by the way, they call it climate change, because the warming stopped -  and even if there were I'd think it meaningless. There used to be a 97 percent consensus that the earth was the center of the universe and that there be monsters here at the end of the flat earth; so I don't care about consensus, even if it exists and it doesn't, and don't bother appending a link to some story that says the opposite because I've read them and the numbers are fudged.

I'm not expert about natural history, but I do know that the earth has been warming for 10 thousand years, since the last great ice age. I know that before that - before SUVs and cow farts - it was pretty warm, since there are aquatic marine fossils in the polar ice caps. I know that 150 years ago - right around the time we started keeping temperature records - the earth emerged from the Little Ice Age that followed the Medieval Warming period and that the way you emerge from an ice age is - wait for it - it gets warmer. Consider: if you started taking the temperature in your back yard in February and it averaged 20 degrees and in March it averaged 30 degrees and in April 60 degrees and in June 70 degrees without further information you'd predict that the temperature in your backyard would be 180 degrees in November and WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE. And you'd go outside and sacrifice a chicken to the weather gods, except there's no god anymore and odds are you need a permit to keep chickens, must less process them.

(Did you know that in Nixon's last state of the union address he was set to propose a US Soviet program of countermeasures to combat the coming ice age? The were removed at the last minute. These included building a giant dam across the Bering Sea to keep the freezing arctic waters out of the Pacific and a proposal to cover the ice caps in soot, black being attractive to heat. This was 40 years ago, as many years from today as Nixon was from Dachau and 100 years after the devil's great invention, the combustion engine. Climate "science" has gone in 50 years from predicting an ice age to predicting an inferno, not to worry though they have a fool proof plan to combat either contingency.)

So I guess it fair to say in the first place that I don't believe the science.

In the second, it seems to me oddly coincidental and a might peculiar that the very things that the left find abhorrent about western civilization - corporations, capitalism, individual liberty, progress, the usual bugbears - are the very things that cause man made climate change, and that the antidotes to AGW are the very things socialists would advocate for in its absence: more and bigger government; more and greater regulation; less freedom; less comfort; more sacrifice for the common good. It's uncanny. The very things the left rails against are the very things that are going to destroy the planet and the only thing that will save the planet is: their political agenda wrapped up in a nice little altruistic bow designed to make the armchair virtue signalers feel oh so very good about themselves and their sacrifices. #savingtheplanet #prius #solarpanels

In the third place - and this one is strange to even me - is the parallel between global warming and other flood myths: man failure to atone for his sins causes an angry god to bring the waters to cleanse the earth.

A charitable man gave away everything he had to the animals. His family deserted him, but when he gave his last meal to the god Ouende, Ouende rewarded him with three handfuls of flour which renewed itself and produced even greater riches. Then Ouende advised him to leave the area, and sent six months of rain to destroy his selfish neighbors. The descendants of the rich man became the present human race.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Every culture in the world has a flood myth. That's the mandingo's. Now the post moderns have one too and it fits the narrative: man is the villain of the post modern world.

And finally - because I'm even starting to bore myself - I don't know a lot of things for sure but I know this: everything everyone says most of the time is false and the louder and more vehement they are about its truth the more likely it is to be a lie. 

The earth is a vast epochal system subject to forces man does not even understand. The idea that he can control them is laughable and the only thing more absurd is the idea that it matters.

A vulgar display of anecdotes but who cares:



Man was a genius... Liberals would stone and crucify him today for saying those things

Pete88

  • Walk-On
  • ***
  • Join Date: Apr 2010
  • Posts: 286
Re: Kathy Griffin
« Reply #89 on: June 07, 2017, 05:57:55 PM »
The earth is a vast epochal system subject to forces man does not even understand.

You make some valid points. One can argue that climate change isn't an exact science, however ozone depletion seems to be a more widely excepted concept. That is not caused by cow farts, but man made halocarbons, allegedly. Now one could also be skeptical about the science behind that as well but what cannot be debated is that fossil fuels are not infinite. It would be in the best interest for us to invest in reusable energy. If not for climate change, or ozone depletion, then for national security. It also wouldn't hurt to be in the fore front of the future of the energy industry.

I'm not a fan of government using policy to destroy a industry because it may not align with their personal agenda especially while ignoring the families that their policies are harming when it may not even be necessary. There is a happy medium, it would be nice if our leaders found it.


Yes, look, absolutely, my skepticism extends in both (all) directions. All things considered I'd be all in favor of solar power, if it worked. I'd be all in favor of tidal power, if it worked. And I'd be more in favor of it if those opposed to fossil fuels were in favor of nuclear power, which works, which supplies 70 percent of the power in even a shiity fvcking horrible country like France, without a single attributable death. But there's no one on the left who advocates for that, a safe cheap abundant power source, because it conflicts with their agenda.   

There was not too long ago (geologically speaking) a vast chestnut forest spreading from Maine to Michigan that had supported a population of native americans forever. Some rich bastard, a vanderbilt or something, returning in the 19th century from vacation in Japan, imported a Nipon chestnut variety and planted it on fifth avenue; his specimens destroyed that ancient forest in 25 years, containing as it did a blight to which the US variety was not immune. The Great Plains were once a great primeval forest that was destroyed by slashing and burning by native peoples over the thousands of years. All of these behaviors of course effect the environment and eventually the climate. But: is that not evolution? Is that not science? Is not the death if those chestnuts the survival of the fittest? 

Question: why is the way the world is RIGHT NOW the best way the world is. Why is not something that occurs in the course of things not better? To think otherwise seems to me the stupidest conclusions. If the theory of evolution is true - and there's no evidence that it it is and in fact there's evidence that it's not - then why is what is what should have been.  What isn't, it just is.

Natural selection and evolution are things of the past. Man now dictates everything for better or worse.

Mighty high opinion you have of Man

Gray Chudney

  • The 6th Man
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Kathy Griffin
« Reply #90 on: June 07, 2017, 06:41:18 PM »
I was waiting for huge St. John's fan Ez_Uzi to return. Never once posted about anything other than politics on two boards.

Poison

  • The 6th Man
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2007
  • Posts: 14175
Re: Kathy Griffin
« Reply #91 on: June 08, 2017, 10:01:00 AM »
The earth is a vast epochal system subject to forces man does not even understand.

You make some valid points. One can argue that climate change isn't an exact science, however ozone depletion seems to be a more widely excepted concept. That is not caused by cow farts, but man made halocarbons, allegedly. Now one could also be skeptical about the science behind that as well but what cannot be debated is that fossil fuels are not infinite. It would be in the best interest for us to invest in reusable energy. If not for climate change, or ozone depletion, then for national security. It also wouldn't hurt to be in the fore front of the future of the energy industry.

I'm not a fan of government using policy to destroy a industry because it may not align with their personal agenda especially while ignoring the families that their policies are harming when it may not even be necessary. There is a happy medium, it would be nice if our leaders found it.


Yes, look, absolutely, my skepticism extends in both (all) directions. All things considered I'd be all in favor of solar power, if it worked. I'd be all in favor of tidal power, if it worked. And I'd be more in favor of it if those opposed to fossil fuels were in favor of nuclear power, which works, which supplies 70 percent of the power in even a shiity fvcking horrible country like France, without a single attributable death. But there's no one on the left who advocates for that, a safe cheap abundant power source, because it conflicts with their agenda.   

There was not too long ago (geologically speaking) a vast chestnut forest spreading from Maine to Michigan that had supported a population of native americans forever. Some rich bastard, a vanderbilt or something, returning in the 19th century from vacation in Japan, imported a Nipon chestnut variety and planted it on fifth avenue; his specimens destroyed that ancient forest in 25 years, containing as it did a blight to which the US variety was not immune. The Great Plains were once a great primeval forest that was destroyed by slashing and burning by native peoples over the thousands of years. All of these behaviors of course effect the environment and eventually the climate. But: is that not evolution? Is that not science? Is not the death if those chestnuts the survival of the fittest? 

Question: why is the way the world is RIGHT NOW the best way the world is. Why is not something that occurs in the course of things not better? To think otherwise seems to me the stupidest conclusions. If the theory of evolution is true - and there's no evidence that it it is and in fact there's evidence that it's not - then why is what is what should have been.  What isn't, it just is.

Natural selection and evolution are things of the past. Man now dictates everything for better or worse.

Mighty high opinion you have of Man

God is watching you Pete. Always.

Foad

  • The 6th Man
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Posts: 3825
Re: Kathy Griffin
« Reply #92 on: June 08, 2017, 04:53:19 PM »
Natural selection and evolution are things of the past. Man now dictates everything for better or worse.

It's an interesting proposition. Evolution is an organism's reponse to environmental stress. A species that evolved to the point that it could control its environment would insure its viability.

That squares with the modern idea that the the world is now the way the world is supposed to be. Which would explain why man wants to control the climate and maintain the physical environment and save species that otherwise would become extinct. Because he believes that the his evolutionary state is the apex and that the way the world is now is the way to perpetuate that apex.

However.

There are in the Pacific Northwest somewhere two species of owl that inhabit a dwindling forest environment. One of the owl species is large and aggressive, the other is small and passive. Periodically federal environmental authorities go into the woods and hunt the large aggressive species and shotgun them to insure the survival of the smaller strain. That's man being the natural selector. The problem with that is the butterfly effect: what if the large owl hosts a parasite that cures cancer or the smaller owl hosts one that causes it. Man is too stupid to conside the ramifications of that. But then on the other hand if a variation of homo sapiens exists that lessens the selection of homo sapiens the owl-driven variation of homo sapiens that survive the selection are more fit than those who don't. What came first, the owl or the egg. Which is the problem with evolution: it's a very circular theory, which makes the absence of evidence for it - and sometimes the falsification of evidence for it - troubling.

And then at the other extreme: what's the evolutionary purpose of homo sapiens creating in the laboratory stockpiles of disease that could wipe out homo sapiens. What's the evolutionary purpose of the atomic bomb, an exchange of which would destroy the viability of the species that created it. Can man be smart enough to save the owls and stupid enough to mass produce anthrax and if so does that reveal an evolutionary purpose? Or is that just random bullshit and the Origin of Species a torpid adaptation of the Book of Genesis. I don't know. We could use some bulk up front though.

 


Support Johnny Jungle

Page created in 0.265 seconds with 26 queries.