Welcome to the Growery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
Quote: niteowl said: I was watching this video about the Vampire squid
It is an interesting lil 3 min clip about an ancient fish living in the deep ocean
At the end the commentator says something about the need for humans to stop the extinction of species
If evolution is real then isn't extinction part of it shouldn't some species go extinct if they can't adapt
Well I think a lot of Ocean wild life is in danger of extinction because of humans (which in fact was mentioned in the video as the reason behind the vampire squids decreasing numbers.) In any case, even if this is not the case, I can't help but feel that, since we are the only ones capable of preventing extinction of a species, we have an obligation to do so.
It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.
-------------------- andyistic said: Ok so let me bring you idiots up to speed.
The admins are tired of this shitfest being made the joke of the weed community on the Internet.
Quote: niteowl said: IF certain animals didnt go extinct we wouldnt be here today
Why what? Sorry I added more to my post.
--EDIT--
Niteowl origionally asked "Why?" However it seems my post and his have been changed for unknown reasons.
-------------------- andyistic said: Ok so let me bring you idiots up to speed.
The admins are tired of this shitfest being made the joke of the weed community on the Internet.
Quote: Spency said: It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.
At humans causing global warming.
The planet has gone through warm and cold periods WELL before humans came on the scene. If polar bears survived then and cant now...its time to go extinct
Extinction can be a good thing in the long term, but in the short term an extinction, at least in the manner we are accelerating it, can cause the collapse of an ecosystem and cause not just one species to become extinct but many.
Life will continue though so really are only concern for extinction lies in our own selfish needs and desires. People are constantly concerned for polar bears but they serve but one small part in the big picture.
-------------------- kickin-two-hundo said: you know what i did in english class? I came to class stoned out of my mind every day, i chugged vodka in the back of class, i put dead fish in the ceiling tiles. i put a gallon of old milk and orange juice in the file cabinet before winter vacation. i brought snakes in a tied up sweater and let them loose during class. i didnt go to school to learn, i went because i had to. i didnt care, and i didn't fucking listen to that stupid bitch. and i still don't fucking care. i tore the pages out of her books and burned them, and threw away all the books in the class, two books per day.
Quote: Spency said: It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.
At humans causing global warming.
The planet has gone through warm and cold periods WELL before humans came on the scene. If polar bears survived then and cant now...its time to go extinct
This is an extremely biased view I hope you know. Especially with all the compelling evidence there is to support the notion that pollution has an adverse effect on planetary temperature and the various ecosystems.
This put aside, we should at the very least accept that we honestly can not say for sure whether the changes that are occurring on the planet are caused by us or natural causes. Ergo, we should try and prevent extinction because it may in fact be our doing.
Ecosystems are extremely delicate and even minor changes can have adverse butterfly effects.
-------------------- andyistic said: Ok so let me bring you idiots up to speed.
The admins are tired of this shitfest being made the joke of the weed community on the Internet.
Quote: Spency said: It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.
At humans causing global warming.
The planet has gone through warm and cold periods WELL before humans came on the scene. If polar bears survived then and cant now...its time to go extinct
If you had done even the slightest bit of research on the topic you would know that the current warming trend is 100% NOT natural. sure in the past there have been wide range temperature fluctuations, but the speed of the current trend is thousands of times faster than anything experienced in the past. additionally, we can say with 100% certainty that CO2, methane and water vapor are extremely potent greenhouse gases so it's a rather logical conclusion that dumping thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is going to have a discernible impact.
Quote: Spency said: It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.
At humans causing global warming.
The planet has gone through warm and cold periods WELL before humans came on the scene. If polar bears survived then and cant now...its time to go extinct
If you had done even the slightest bit of research on the topic you would know that the current warming trend is 100% NOT natural. sure in the past there have been wide range temperature fluctuations, but the speed of the current trend is thousands of times faster than anything experienced in the past. additionally, we can say with 100% certainty that CO2, methane and water vapor are extremely potent greenhouse gases so it's a rather logical conclusion that dumping thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is going to have a discernible impact.
QFT
I went to a lecture at the U a couple of years ago on this subject.
The local weather men/women/meteorologist were there along with some other scientists that have published in the scientific journal.
Anyways long story short, they basically said what you did Harry, that yes it's all natural to have warm and cold periods, but not at exponential rates like we are experiencing. A few degrees change in a couple hundred years is definitely not normal. Maybe over 10,000 years or more...
-------------------- Don't criticize what you can't understand
Quote: niteowl said: My POV is no more biased than yours man.
Extinction is a FACT of life no way around that.
If the Vampire squid survived for over 350 million years ..... and cant adapt to the current changes.....its time to go
If a house/factory/town is build and some rare field mouse becomes extinct
Life sux then you die.
Do I think we need to take care of our environment ...
Do I think it is our responsibility to prevent the extinction of random rare species ...
My view is not biased at all. I said we must be open to the possibility that it is in fact us - the video specifically said the species was dying due to pollution and changing ocean temperatures. One of those two is definitely our fault. There is no argument there.
Also, I must say, it seems unusual to me for one to dismiss a possible correlation between our consumption of fossil fuels and temperature changes. Mainly because glaciers across the planet have begun to melt at phenomenal rates in the last 50 years - coincidentally, in the last 50 years we have also seen enormous global industrialization, ever increasing fuel consumption and the introduction of mainstream air travel.
Sorry just seems fishy to me.
In addition, like I also said: ecosystems can be extremely delicate, and even miniscule changes can cause butterfly effects throughout an entire ecosystem. These butterfly effects can happen in short term and long term scenarios. We can not let one species die dismissing it as "just one species."
Perhaps its wrong of me to say we have an obligation to prevent extinction, but if anything we should at the very least prolong the death of a species in the name of science. Especially considering the prehistoric qualities of this creature, can give interesting insight for prehistoric marine animal research.
I mean if anything, we should at least preserve a species with the intention of perhaps finding out whether or not it provides some kind of use to humans: for example, the squid may carry an unknown medicine.
Quote: niteowl said: All the numbers collected in the past 20 years are skewed
Global warming is nothing more than political B.S.
Once again, this is an extremely biased opinion.
Do you have anything else perhaps a bit more substantial to support you claim? Old men debating on CNN doesn't really convince me. Especially when one of the men speaking is the co-founder of the weather channel - for all we know, a business man with no actual meteorological background.
-------------------- andyistic said: Ok so let me bring you idiots up to speed.
The admins are tired of this shitfest being made the joke of the weed community on the Internet.
I'm split on the issue. It could be solar, idk. What I do know is that we are not helping the situation. That said it is only in our interests that we be environmental. Life will survive and move on, be it in different forms, climate change is merely a threat to human life as we know it.
I also find it strange that the biggest purporter of man-made global warming, Al Gore, has his hands in big business selling carbon offsets.
-------------------- kickin-two-hundo said: you know what i did in english class? I came to class stoned out of my mind every day, i chugged vodka in the back of class, i put dead fish in the ceiling tiles. i put a gallon of old milk and orange juice in the file cabinet before winter vacation. i brought snakes in a tied up sweater and let them loose during class. i didnt go to school to learn, i went because i had to. i didnt care, and i didn't fucking listen to that stupid bitch. and i still don't fucking care. i tore the pages out of her books and burned them, and threw away all the books in the class, two books per day.
I dont even know where to begin with this thread. So i will put it shortly. There can really be no debate about human's contributions to our environment effecting it in a negative way. Look at the way we completely exploit a resource and then move on to the next one. That's been going on since well before the industrial revolution. The scientific community doesn't view this as something that's debatable. The media outlets love to make it something that can be questioned. Money will make people say anything. Yes, extinction is necessary, so long as it's caused naturally. Now, if the squid existed for 350 million years and now it'd dying (lets say hypothetically from increased water temperature in their habitat) surely we can attribute that rise in temperature to something, and i would suspect it would be from our actions over the last 200 years. So, when we can partially attribute a life forms extinction to OUR behaviour then extinction is not a good thing as bats said, it'll fuck up our ecosystems and could eventually get back to us. denying global warming is like being a prohibitionist. throw out reason and science for political gain. pffft!
Read that article again. They attribute the temperature changes to dust storms (which get pretty big on Mars.) They say the dust storms are caused by variations in both radiation and temperature. Note, that the variations causing the dust storms could be within the natural fluctuations of the planets environment. However, we don't have dust storms here on Earth, so it is very difficult to suggest that this is not merely coincidence.
-------------------- andyistic said: Ok so let me bring you idiots up to speed.
The admins are tired of this shitfest being made the joke of the weed community on the Internet.
Quote: Spency said: Do you have anything else perhaps a bit more substantial to support you claim?
There are tons of evidence against human based global warming all you have to do is look for it just because the 6 o'clock news said its real
doesn't make it so
Quote: 8 Arguments Against Global Warming Adapted from The Heartland Institute
Many claim that global warming is obvious and that all arguments against global warming fall. The problem is that what is "obvious" often isn't true.
Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.
Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.
All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.
Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.
This is one of the greatest arguments against global warming. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.
Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.
After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”
The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
Even The Washington Post stated in 2006, "Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming."
The simple fact that it is being shoved down my throat makes me suspicious if it..... just like the swine flu that still hasn't turned in to the pandemic it was supposed to
Their is an underlying agenda in the Global Warming crowd and is isn't about saving the planet
Quote: Spency said: Do you have anything else perhaps a bit more substantial to support you claim?
There are tons of evidence against human based global warming all you have to do is look for it just because the 6 o'clock news said its real
doesn't make it so
Quote: 8 Arguments Against Global Warming Adapted from The Heartland Institute
Many claim that global warming is obvious and that all arguments against global warming fall. The problem is that what is "obvious" often isn't true.
Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.
Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.
All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.
Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.
This is one of the greatest arguments against global warming. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.
Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.
After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”
The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
Even The Washington Post stated in 2006, "Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming."
The simple fact that it is being shoved down my throat makes me suspicious if it..... just like the swine flu that still hasn't turned in to the pandemic it was supposed to
Their is an underlying agenda in the Global Warming crowd and is isn't about saving the planet
The article you just quoted is from the same institution that spoke on that show. Once again, your evidence is really unsubstantial.
Also, if you read that article, it mentions the EPA has also suppressed pro-global warming reports. So really, I'm far from convinced with the sources your providing. Though I am very open to the idea that it is just politically driven madness.
Also, please do not merely address my points - you should really respond to the others that are making stronger assertions than I am.
-------------------- andyistic said: Ok so let me bring you idiots up to speed.
The admins are tired of this shitfest being made the joke of the weed community on the Internet.
Read that article again. They attribute the temperature changes to dust storms (which get pretty big on Mars.) They say the dust storms are caused by variations in both radiation and temperature. Note, that the variations causing the dust storms could be within the natural fluctuations of the planets environment. However, we don't have dust storms here on Earth, so it is very difficult to suggest that this is not merely coincidence.
That's their theory, they need more data to support it. And yes we do have dust storms on earth, just not on the scale in which they occur on mars. It just seems strange that it's at nearly the same rate.
-------------------- kickin-two-hundo said: you know what i did in english class? I came to class stoned out of my mind every day, i chugged vodka in the back of class, i put dead fish in the ceiling tiles. i put a gallon of old milk and orange juice in the file cabinet before winter vacation. i brought snakes in a tied up sweater and let them loose during class. i didnt go to school to learn, i went because i had to. i didnt care, and i didn't fucking listen to that stupid bitch. and i still don't fucking care. i tore the pages out of her books and burned them, and threw away all the books in the class, two books per day.
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
I dont even know where to begin with this thread. So i will put it shortly. There can really be no debate about human's contributions to our environment effecting it in a negative way. Look at the way we completely exploit a resource and then move on to the next one. That's been going on since well before the industrial revolution. The scientific community doesn't view this as something that's debatable. The media outlets love to make it something that can be questioned. Money will make people say anything. Yes, extinction is necessary, so long as it's caused naturally. Now, if the squid existed for 350 million years and now it'd dying (lets say hypothetically from increased water temperature in their habitat) surely we can attribute that rise in temperature to something, and i would suspect it would be from our actions over the last 200 years. So, when we can partially attribute a life forms extinction to OUR behaviour then extinction is not a good thing as bats said, it'll fuck up our ecosystems and could eventually get back to us. denying global warming is like being a prohibitionist. throw out reason and science for political gain. pffft!
