Global Warming

Premise A: An "Ice Age" is defined as any period when there are icecaps present on the planet.

Premise B: This planet's natural average temperature has varied by TENS of degrees over it's history.

Premise C: The planet's natural state is not to have icecaps.

Conclusion: people who bleat about global warming hurting the Earth, are retards, and selfish shallow ones at that, what they mean is "global warming may have some effect on the ability of our speciaes to have everything it's own way".

You prove to me that the Venusians made their home the way it is with cars and we'll talk again.

I aint saying we shouldn;t make some effort not to be irresponsible plebs....but FFS give it 50 years and we'll all have hydrogen fuel celled vehicles (or none at all) anyway....so for like 200 years we dirtied the place up...so fucking what, that's too short a time to even measure geologically.

Sigh...humans are just SOOOO coool.

oh dear. what about the impact golbal warming will have on other species? i know this planet has suffered multiple mass extintions througout its existance, but we didn't contribute to those.

the earth will go on regardless of what we do, still i think it is a good idea to minimise our impact.

yes, but the Earth will come out of this ice age with or without us and the same species will still go the wall.

The temperature varies over the course of geologic time. Species go extinct over the course of geologic time.

The difference this time is we've appropriated so much of the planet that affected species will have no way to migrate-- there will be no place to migrate to. Species will die. New species adapted to the hotter climate won't be evolve. The earth will be a poorer place for it. But that's OK as long as we have the freedom to burn oil until the last drop is gone? And then we'll stop, because we have no choice?

Biomes (forests, etc.) migrate. This time, they won't be able to, because we're standing in their path. Entire biomes will disappear...

And before that happens, our economies, and our ability to feed ourselves, and to have fresh water, will crash and burn.

But somehow it's all worth it...

Thank God we don't have a president in the White House who buys into all that apocalyptic crypto-Bible "Book of Revelations"-End-of-Days bunk and is doing all he can to prevent the depletion of our natural protective enviroment by overuse of fossil fuels that would otherwise gnaw away at what little ozone we have left and leave Earth uninhabitable and dangerously naked to the effects of Sun-fueled radiation.

Instead, we have a dickwad bumpkus in the pocket of Big Oil who couldn't give a shit 'cause it's his daddy's money that he's coasting on, anyway

I read that the hockey stick model (that demonstrated climate change over centuries) was a mistake. Even though I know that we need to conserve our natural resources and recycle, I'm too confused about what to believe about global warming.

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: I'm too confused about what to believe about global warming.

That's their goal.

Whose goal? The scientists, politicians, or both?

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Whose goal? The scientists, politicians, or both?

Those with a financial interest in maintaining the status quo. Follow the money.

I guess that would add lobbyists to the confusion, too.

Well, lobbyists are just hired guns. But there are certainly lobbyists with a lot of money pushing the views of their clients on global warming.

But what I meant was "follow the money to those who have the financial interest in maintaining the status quo."

Who stands to benefit from maintaining the status quo on global warming? Who stands to lose from doing something about global warming? And how do their views match with the nearly universal global scientific consensus on the subject?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Well, lobbyists are just hired guns. But there are certainly lobbyists with a lot of money pushing the views of their clients on global warming.

But what I meant was "follow the money to those who have the financial interest in maintaining the status quo."

Who stands to benefit from maintaining the status quo on global warming? Who stands to lose from doing something about global warming? And how do their views match with the nearly universal global scientific consensus on the subject?

So do lobbiests control the Discovery channel? As they showed many different theories on why the earth is in global warming. Most of which had little to do with use of oil.

It's on both sides Comrade. You livein Oregon, you know what I'm talking about. There is no inbetween in OR, you either want to cut all the trees down and fuck the enviroment, or you're a tree hugging hippie that goes nuts over the enviroment....no real inbetween. One sees the other go radical, so the othergoes more radical to compete with the other side, and so on and so forth. Cozzie has a right to be confused, since there are jackasses on both sides blowing things out of proportion to get people to side with them.

there may be exaggeration on the "pro" global warming side, they don't really know how the weather patterns will play out... heck, they don't fully understand the current weather patterns of the last decade for that matter... but that doesn't mean you can't discuss and worry about future problems. what do the global warming warners hope to gain as a group? where is the selfish motivation here as a group?

now on the "anti" global warming side, what do these people hope to gain? obvious money interests and religious rightwing interests... the "science is stupid" attitude and the constant arguements about why people should not even discuss global warning is scary and stupid, as well as absurd. Rush Limbaugh probably spends a couple of hours a week talking about how it is stupid to talk about global warming.

no matter what, humans are drastically changing the earth and causing massive extinctions but you should always try to fix something that is breaking or broken, not look the other way... you gotta discuss and learn and try

common sense is all I'm asking for......

....this extremism and also the popular thing to be "in the know", when they really don't is what is annoying.

Fuck it, firebomb them all as well.......

Fact: this is the interglacial phase of an ice age.

Until the ice caps are TOTALLY GONE we should not worry about global warming.

Humans are such arogant cunts, they think that a planet that can withstand gamma ray bursts, coronal mass ejections, cometry impacts, and even it's own inside spewing out in flood bassalt planes....is going to blow up and fall into the sun because we drive SUV's...sorry 4wheel drives, forgot I speak English there.

I appreciate we're doing no good, but it's only ourselves who will really suffer. And hell slap it into us. Easiest way would be to use electric cars fueled from atomic powerstations, as all nuclear stations do is REDUCE the overall amount of radiactive material on Earth.

Anyway, like I say, the Earth only has 30 or 40 years of this shit to deal with, then we run out of fossil fuels anyway.

With regards to hydrogen powered cars.....what a bunch of spastics the oil companies are. Instead of blocking this technology at every turn, the sensible option would be to exploit their existing infrastructure to ensure that when Hydrogen is our primary fuel ( which, considering it is the most abundant material in the universe by a couple of orders of magnitude is going to be our fuel for a long time), they are still in a good market position.

So, WAS venus's "runaway greenhouse effect" caused by cars?

BTW, trees are useless at air recycling too, algae is responsible for more oxygen than all the other plant life on the planet, so fuck the rainforest, and lets grow pondweed.

Besides, I live in Ireland.....Global warming? BOUT FUCKIN TIME!

PS.... you don;t think the earth is getting hotter cos

THE SUN IS GETTING HOTTER

no?

So the "mini ice age" 100 or so years ago wasn't caused by a cooler sun either?

Sigh.

Again, moving away from oil is a good thing we should do soon, but fat rich american cunts wont do that, so we'll have to wait till it runs out.

Global warming is good for Alaska, so I'm for it.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: The temperature varies over the course of geologic time. Species go extinct over the course of geologic time.

The difference this time is we've appropriated so much of the planet that affected species will have no way to migrate-- there will be no place to migrate to. Species will die. New species adapted to the hotter climate won't be evolve. The earth will be a poorer place for it. But that's OK as long as we have the freedom to burn oil until the last drop is gone? And then we'll stop, because we have no choice?

Biomes (forests, etc.) migrate. This time, they won't be able to, because we're standing in their path. Entire biomes will disappear...

And before that happens, our economies, and our ability to feed ourselves, and to have fresh water, will crash and burn.

But somehow it's all worth it...

Wow, some serious misconceptions are being cited as fact - pardon me for butting in here Comrade, it's not you that I'm singling out, but evolution and ice ages are kinda my thing (PhD and all).... what evidence is there new species adapted to a hotter environment won't evolve? One thing we have to look forward to is an increase in the rate of evolution thanks to higher levels of UV radiation (you know that hole in the ozone layer? That is speeding up the occurence of mutations, which have been recognised for years as the mechanism that drives evolution.)

This misconception that "humanity is killing the planet" smacks of an inflated sense of self-importance that some of us humans have. Why do we think that just because we do it, it's "unnatural"? Where exactly did humans evolve, in God's petri dish? There's a theory that humanity is little more than a noxious weed of a species destined to clear a path for the next 'dominant lifeform', expanding like a bacterial colony until the resources run out then dropping back to tiny pockets of isolated populations, if not entirely extinct. We won't kill the planet, we may momentarily speed up the mechanism that drives evolution, but that's it.

As for global warming, this is far more complex than any of us are led to believe. I'm all for ensuring the next generation of humans is not impacted negatively by our unsustainable resource gorging, but consider this: 900 years ago Vikings (no, not Jarvis, though he is quite old) were cultivating crops in Greenland, which is now covered in ice. An inconvenient truth? You better believe it.

Flame on, you know you want to.

CTB

Doctor? wrote:

Besides, I live in Ireland.....Global warming? BOUT FUCKIN TIME!

Or as in many theories, if the warm ocean currents that warm Ireland and Europe stop, Ireland will become like Greenland without the glaciers and Western Europe will become like Russia

not really much you can do about it anyway, who knows. Ireland barely has any native creatures or plants to die off anyway

Hey, the global warming debate is no place for science CTB.

Forget explaining evolution and cell mutation to this lot mate.....most people think mobile phones cause cancer despite microwaves not actually being ionising radiation.

While we're doing facts.....

FACT: we can fire off all our bombs, and let out all our superbugs ( of which the USA who bomb folks fr making them have a HUGE and VERY dangerously secured stock), and wipe the planet clean.

Life will be back in under a million years.

because.... FACT: DNA is the dominant lifeform on this world, we are simply the equivalent of an aircraft carrier of the like, a collection of DNA, a tool for it's continued domination. DNA couldn't give a fuck about WHICH of it's forms spread to other worlds, as long as they do.

Oh and FACT: in 5-6 billion years the sun will engulf this planet as it swells, searing it's surface to a crisp....so unless we get off this rock, all of everything is worthless, New Order will be lost forever. And what difference will environmentalists make then..."oh the earth's getting warmer"

pumped full of drugs wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Besides, I live in Ireland.....Global warming? BOUT FUCKIN TIME!

Or as in many theories, if the warm ocean currents that warm Ireland and Europe stop, Ireland will become like Greenland without the glaciers and Western Europe will become like Russia

not really much you can do about it anyway, who knows. Ireland barely has any native creatures or plants to die off anyway

I don't think there is any unique life here, except maybe Billy, Dougie and Skinser the spides.

Are they eunuch or unique tho Steve?

I give the human race 500 more years. We're all gone by then. Any bets?

I'll have a tenner with you that The Proclaimers would'nt walk 500 hundred miles to be that man,nevermind 500 more.Specky gobshites!

The natural cycles will see off mankind on earth no doubt,but as cambo says..If we channel resources into space travel/exploration instead of war,then there is a chance to continue for who knows how long,ofcourse..And we should do,but for scruffy daft cunts like George Bush and the like..

Nah, space travel and exploration is a colossal waste of money and resources that could better be used to the benefit of the planet we have now and the less fortunate creatures that live on it. Fuck space.

Continued investment of resources in space is vital. On many levels.

I tow the technocratic line. Investment in technology and, at it's most basic, human greed will ultimately deliver us from these sorts of pickles.

:\pimp3:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: Nah, space travel and exploration is a colossal waste of money and resources that could better be used to the benefit of the planet we have now and the less fortunate creatures that live on it. Fuck space.

So they can look forward to TOTAL AND CERTAIN EXTINCTION? Well OK, they're nth generation kids. What's that about....we want a better world for our kids and grandkids, but at some point down the generations we think "fuck em, let em die"

popey I never know when you're being serious mate, especially when you KNOW that governments spend less on space thanoffice stationary, and that, for example, one aircraft carrier costs the same as 7-10 years of shuttle operations.

Take it you have no time for the supposed relationship between global warming and the "freak" weather we'll be getting for the next few days, Cambo??

Fierce storms are to batter Britain for the rest of the week, forecasters have warned. Freakish fluctuations in weather will start with a frost tonight, before high winds and heavy rains rip across the UK, reports claim. Gusts hitting 70mph are predicted and there is an increased risk of flooding.The forecast comes as Britain recovers from some of the wildest New Year storms for years.Celebrations in Edinburgh, Newcastle upon Tyne, Glasgow, Belfast and Liverpool were abandoned amid gales and downpours.The high winds and torrential rain are expected to continue until the end of the weekend, hitting the South West, Wales and the Midlands.The Met Office told the Daily Express: "The area of high pressure moving through on Wednesday will mean cold, clear spells and we can expect frost overnight."Then heavy rain and strong winds will quickly spread back in from the West. It will be very windy."At the same time, it is so mild that daffodils have been blooming months ahead of season and leaves are staying on trees for far longer than is usual.Parts of the country have hit record temperatures for this time of year.

Probably is a relationship yes....warmer=more energy, it's high school stuff. But our weather is limp as hell anyway, and how do we KNOW it's "freak weather" when we have records for only 150 years or so...IS it freak weather if measured from the time the Earth cooled? I doubt it. More human arrogance, it's like the Earth has only existed as long as man or something.

PS, EVERy species affects it's environemt....you don't see beavers holding mass rallies to discuss alternatives to dams because "rising water levels" are killing other woodland beasites.

PPS...erm 1987, which according to greenies, we are now MUCh hotter than, had no storms at all then?

ally wrote:

Doctor Clayhead wrote: The Met Office told the Daily Express:

are you doing reading that paper, Frads?

Know thy enemy, Ally.

Global Warming will mean that in the next 50 years we will have the same climate as Ibiza.

In the words of Ally G, LET'S MAKE IT 'APPEN

:clicksfingersgangsterstylee:

It pains me to say it,but I'm with Cambo all the way on this one.(so far)

Missy Jem wrote: Global Warming will mean that in the next 50 years we will have the same climate as Ibiza.

In the words of Ally G, LET'S MAKE IT 'APPEN

By den you is gonna huv ricotta fighs, so don' go wearin' no bikini to Tesco's, aiiiiiight ...

:\pimp3:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: I give the human race 500 more years. We're all gone by then. Any bets?

We won't be around to collect!

Missy Jem wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: I give the human race 500 more years. We're all gone by then. Any bets?

We won't be around to collect!

We should really rape it out of him now,to be on the safe side! He won't mind,being a man of the cloth.It's just business

Easter eggs are arriving earlier every year, a clear indication methinks.

I've just had an email from EIL.COM warning me that Christmas is only 354 days away.

:dead:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Well, lobbyists are just hired guns. But there are certainly lobbyists with a lot of money pushing the views of their clients on global warming.

But what I meant was "follow the money to those who have the financial interest in maintaining the status quo."

Who stands to benefit from maintaining the status quo on global warming? Who stands to lose from doing something about global warming? And how do their views match with the nearly universal global scientific consensus on the subject?

So do lobbiests control the Discovery channel?

The “doubt” in the “debate” is being spun out of oil company war-rooms. That doubt isn’t a part of the nearly universal scientific consensus. That a television station would discuss “doubt” when there is no scientific doubt demonstrates the political strength of the oil companies in getting their message out.

Cozzie has a right to be confused, since there are jackasses on both sides blowing things out of proportion to get people to side with them.

Cozzie’s confused because she doesn’t know who to believe. And that is the goal of the oil companies. If there’s confusion, if there’s doubt, if the science is “uncertain,” if we need “more science,” then the oil companies can continue business as usual, and those “jackasses”—the vast majority of the world’s climatologists—will be ignored.

Doctor? wrote: Fact: this is the interglacial phase of an ice age.

Until the ice caps are TOTALLY GONE we should not worry about global warming.

Why is that? Because climate is so totally controllable that we can put the ice caps back the next day? Because we can somehow prevent all of the extinctions that will follow the loss of the ice caps?

Humans are such arogant cunts

As your own comments above amply demonstrate. Hoist by your own petard, eh Doc?

they think that a planet that can withstand gamma ray bursts, coronal mass ejections, cometry impacts, and even it's own inside spewing out in flood bassalt planes....is going to blow up and fall into the sun because we drive SUV's...sorry 4wheel drives, forgot I speak English there.

There’s a difference between an iron-rock mass withstanding those catastrophic events, and implying that the Earth’s species can survive whatever we throw at them. Or for that matter, implying that we can survive whatever we do. Cobalt bomb, anyone? But let’s suppose we do survive in the physical sense. Will our economies survive as growing seasons change, as temperate regions shift, as fresh water becomes a scarce resource? Your own government believes the economic impact alone will be disastrous.

I appreciate we're doing no good, but it's only ourselves who will really suffer.

Patent nonsense.

Anyway, like I say, the Earth only has 30 or 40 years of this shit to deal with, then we run out of fossil fuels anyway…

So, WAS venus's "runaway greenhouse effect" caused by cars?

Another 30-40 years of burning oil will only make matters worse. And after the oil is gone, what do the global warming ostriches propose to use for lubricating machinery? Or are we just going to go back to the stone age after we’ve burned the last drop?

Venus demonstrates the dangers of a runaway greenhouse, but we’re demonstrating that we can create the same effect.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Global warming is good for Alaska, so I'm for it.

The Alaska natives don’t think it’s good for Alaska. So why do you? Polar bears are about to be placed on the Endangered Species list because of the loss of the polar ice caps. You think this is a positive development? Vast areas of land that is currently temperate farm land will become arid desert. You think Alaska getting warmer outweighs that?

Doctor? wrote: Hey, the global warming debate is no place for science CTB.

Forget explaining evolution and cell mutation to this lot mate.....

Spoken by the guy who claims that oil comes from animals. Better hit the books Doc, evolution has little to do with cell mutation.

While we're doing facts.....

…

Life will be back in under a million years.

100 million years for a complete recovery. But you go on thinking you’re science literate. Throw enough bullshit against the wall, some of it will stick.

Doctor? wrote: Probably is a relationship yes....warmer=more energy, it's high school stuff. But our weather is limp as hell anyway, and how do we KNOW it's "freak weather" when we have records for only 150 years or so...IS it freak weather if measured from the time the Earth cooled? I doubt it. More human arrogance, it's like the Earth has only existed as long as man or something.

Hit the climate books while you’re at it, Doc. You’ll discover that scientists actually have climate records going back – gasp!—millions of years, long before weather records began to be kept.

CTB wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: The temperature varies over the course of geologic time. Species go extinct over the course of geologic time.

The difference this time is we've appropriated so much of the planet that affected species will have no way to migrate-- there will be no place to migrate to. Species will die. New species adapted to the hotter climate won't be evolve. The earth will be a poorer place for it. But that's OK as long as we have the freedom to burn oil until the last drop is gone? And then we'll stop, because we have no choice?

Biomes (forests, etc.) migrate. This time, they won't be able to, because we're standing in their path. Entire biomes will disappear...

And before that happens, our economies, and our ability to feed ourselves, and to have fresh water, will crash and burn.

But somehow it's all worth it...

Wow, some serious misconceptions are being cited as fact - pardon me for butting in here Comrade, it's not you that I'm singling out, but evolution and ice ages are kinda my thing (PhD and all).... what evidence is there new species adapted to a hotter environment won't evolve?

I’m relying on two phenomena as evidence. First, we’re in the midst of a great extinction as massive as the last five. Of course, as species die off, suddenly vacant niches will become available for exploitation… Except for the fact that species are dieing off because we’re appropriating their habitat. With the habitat gone, the niche disappears, so there’s no opportunity for species to evolve to fill that niche. Second, the loss of species across the board means there’s a loss of genetic material from which species can evolve to fill the vacant niches. As E.O. Wilson puts it, recovery from each of the last mass extinctions took on the order of 100 million years or so; new species may evolve, but not within a length of time that has any meaning for contemporary humanity.

One thing we have to look forward to is an increase in the rate of evolution thanks to higher levels of UV radiation (you know that hole in the ozone layer? That is speeding up the occurence of mutations, which have been recognised for years as the mechanism that drives evolution.)

Genetic mutation is the mechanism that drives evolution? I think at best there’s a highly overstated importance attached to genetic mutation. I would argue that natural selection, determined by fitness, is what drives evolution, with occasional leaps made possible through genetic mutation.

This misconception that "humanity is killing the planet" smacks of an inflated sense of self-importance that some of us humans have. Why do we think that just because we do it, it's "unnatural"? Where exactly did humans evolve, in God's petri dish? There's a theory that humanity is little more than a noxious weed of a species destined to clear a path for the next 'dominant lifeform', expanding like a bacterial colony until the resources run out then dropping back to tiny pockets of isolated populations, if not entirely extinct. We won't kill the planet, we may momentarily speed up the mechanism that drives evolution, but that's it.

And what’s the point of killing off most of the earth’s species? What’s the point, for that matter, of killing ourselves off?

As for global warming, this is far more complex than any of us are led to believe. I'm all for ensuring the next generation of humans is not impacted negatively by our unsustainable resource gorging, but consider this: 900 years ago Vikings (no, not Jarvis, though he is quite old) were cultivating crops in Greenland, which is now covered in ice. An inconvenient truth? You better believe it.

The minor climatic variations—a warmer period in Greenland before the 12th century, followed by a little ice age—were not long-term trends in the Earth’s climate. Global warming is. The earth has been a lot hotter than it is now, and a lot colder.

The oil companies believe that it’s in their short-term best interest for us to burn the last of the Earth’s oil, right down to the last drop. The question for us, as we ponder whether to burn the last of the Earth’s oil right down to the last drop, is whether extreme temperature change is in our long-term best interest.

Commie....

1. lubricating oil doesn't cause global warming you fucking spastic, you need to burn it releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

2. All those things the (ahem) "iron" mass of the planet ( most of it is nickel actually) survived, you;re right life could never survive them, we are therefor all a product of each other's derranged immagination.

3. The planet's natural, default, and most commonly occuring condition is to have NO ICE CAPS AT ALL...ICE CAPS MEAN YOU'RE IN AN ICE AGE FFS!

of course global warming is a real thing, but so unbelievably insignificant in terms of Earth's function of raising life (not HUMAN life, we're not important), that all this running around waving arms in the air is just another monet making scheme....yes folks you heard it here first..>AL GORE CHARGES MONEY FOR HIS HOLY MESSAGE...AND PRESSES IT ON POLYCABONATE DVD'S MADE FROM? PETRO-FUCKING-CHEMICALS

Go on, next time a greenie starts on you....ask them if they uses any fossil fuels getting to the street they're bothering you in...ask them for that leaflet for free, surely saving the planet and everything on it ( as they delude themselves), is surely not a work to be profited from.

The things that always amuses me, is typified by the BBC's excellent series "coast". During the course of the series, they constantly show how this or that bit of coast line has change in either geologic or even human time, how towns that were on the sea 100 years ago are miles inland ( global cooling?), and such like. The overall message is "nature is a dynamic system which NEVER remains the same"....then 5 mins later there's some cack on about protecting some strech of coast forever so it doesn;t change.....and the irony of this is totally lost on both the producers and the presenters.

"Genetic mutation is the mechanism that drives evolution? I think at best there’s a highly overstated importance attached to genetic mutation. I would argue that natural selection, determined by fitness, is what drives evolution, with occasional leaps made possible through genetic mutation."

LOL

point missed yes natural selection drives evolution...but there is only ONE majot mechanism by which you create anything to select between....ionising radiation causing cell mutation. You can't find out that a red beak attracts more mates than a yellow one if no bird ever mutated to have a red beak. I gues this comes from evolution being iliegal in the land of the free eh?

Ah well, your fundamental lack of understanding regarding this somewhat key point of DNA's existence on this planet shows exactly the kind of wooly logic involved on both sides of the GW debate.

EDIT: how can it take 100 million years to recover from our CO2 emissions when far more CO2 was released during flood bassalt events, the last of which was quite a lot less than 100million years ago, and the next of which is overdue. Oh and I am quite aware that about 85% of oil is actually algae, but it also containts lots of dead sea creatures. Then again, people whinge about saving trees when algae are MUCH more efficient CO2-O2 processors.

And one more thing, columbo styleeeee..... The icecaps have been receeding for about 20000 years ( or is it 40)...lots of prehistoric oil barons were there?

Doctor? wrote: Commie....

1. lubricating oil doesn't cause global warming you fucking spastic, you need to burn it releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Or maybe it's just READING COMPREHENSION you need to brush up on? Or are you just constructing strawman arguments? I mentioned lubricating oil because it comes from petroleum. If we burn all of our petroleum, where are we going to get lubricating oil from?

The short answer is soybeans.

To do that, we'll have to plant even more acres in soy, resulting in even more loss of habitat. We might even have to stop feeding soy to cattle, resulting in meat becoming an expensive commodity. I'm just scratching the surface here, but one thing we can be sure of is replacing petroleum with soy will bring new problems for us.

2. All those things the (ahem) "iron" mass of the planet ( most of it is nickel actually) survived, you;re right life could never survive them, we are therefor all a product of each other's derranged immagination.

Well, if you don't take a Eurocentric perspective, many Asian religions do hold that this is all illusion.

On the other hand, putting Asian religion aside for the moment, It's taken us 5 billion years to get where we are today. Five starts, five stops, each mass extinction resulting in 100s of millions of years needed for life on Earth to recover. The fact that life did recover, eventually, is hardly an argument for continuing to destroy life on Earth.

3. The planet's natural, default, and most commonly occuring condition is to have NO ICE CAPS AT ALL...ICE CAPS MEAN YOU'RE IN AN ICE AGE FFS!

We are not in an ice age now, and we have ice caps. As you yourself have said, we are in an interglacial period. Whether the "default" position is no ice caps, or not, I don't know. What I do know is global warming-- or another ice age, for that matter-- will not be an "improvement" in the climate for our species.

of course global warming is a real thing, but so unbelievably insignificant in terms of Earth's function of raising life (not HUMAN life, we're not important), that all this running around waving arms in the air is just another monet making scheme....yes folks you heard it here first..>AL GORE CHARGES MONEY FOR HIS HOLY MESSAGE...AND PRESSES IT ON POLYCABONATE DVD'S MADE FROM? PETRO-FUCKING-CHEMICALS

So the poor widdle oil companies-- who hardly are making a penny on sales of oil-- are just trying to follow nature's plan-- or God's plan, if one prefers-- for the Earth, and along came Al Gore with a sure-fire money-making scheme...

... And all those climatologists are just a part of his nefarious scheme...

Ermmmm An Ice Age is defined as any period where ice caps are present. Interglacial just means that the glaciers have retreated above the arctic circle.......and what warmed the earth to drive them there.

Oh, and if it akes 100's of millions of years, explain the rather green and pleasant planet around us, a mere 65million years from the last mass extinction event.

Doctor? wrote: "Genetic mutation is the mechanism that drives evolution? I think at best there’s a highly overstated importance attached to genetic mutation. I would argue that natural selection, determined by fitness, is what drives evolution, with occasional leaps made possible through genetic mutation."

LOL

point missed yes natural selection drives evolution...but there is only ONE majot mechanism by which you create anything to select between....ionising radiation causing cell mutation.

More patent nonsense.

Variation, Doc. Variation.

You can't find out that a red beak attracts more mates than a yellow one if no bird ever mutated to have a red beak. I gues this comes from evolution being iliegal in the land of the free eh?

Well, it ain't illegal there, and you know fuck-all about evolution.

Ah well, your fundamental lack of understanding regarding this somewhat key point of DNA's existence on this planet shows exactly the kind of wooly logic involved on both sides of the GW debate.

Again, you know fuck-all about evolution. It's about variation and natural selection, and usually not about "mutations," very very few of which are successful. Natural selection is a genetic response to environmental pressures, derived from genetic variation in the species. It is not a random, chance occurrence that just happened to be the right mutation needed for that species at that time.

EDIT: how can it take 100 million years to recover

The average recovery time from major extinction events has been 100 million years or so.

from our CO2 emissions when far more CO2 was released during flood bassalt events, the last of which was quite a lot less than 100million years ago, and the next of which is overdue. Oh and I am quite aware that about 85% of oil is actually algae, but it also containts lots of dead sea creatures. Then again, people whinge about saving trees when algae are MUCH more efficient CO2-O2 processors.

So you're aware that oil is not derived from animals, and yet when it's convenient to your argument, you claim it is made from animals. Says a lot.

And one more thing, columbo styleeeee..... The icecaps have been receeding for about 20000 years ( or is it 40)...lots of prehistoric oil barons were there?

Point to one scientist who has ever said that global warming can only be caused by burning oil.

Doctor? wrote: Ermmmm An Ice Age is defined as any period where ice caps are present. Interglacial just means that the glaciers have retreated above the arctic circle.......and what warmed the earth to drive them there.

OK, fair enough, I just wiki'd it. But if the Earth's default climate is no ice caps, and we're an ice age species, then no ice caps is a bad thing for us.

Oh, and if it akes 100's of millions of years, explain the rather green and pleasant planet around us, a mere 65million years from the last mass extinction event.

I was relying on memory. My error, it takes tens of millions of years, but one recovery took 100 million years. here's the quote, from E.O. Wilson:

"To summarize: life was impoverished in five major events, and to lesser degree here and there around the world in countless other episodes. After each downturn it recovered to at least the original level of diversity. How long did it take for evolution to restore the losses after the first-order spasms? The number of families of animals living in the sea is as reliable a measure as we have been able to obtain from the existing fossil evidence. In general, five million years were only enough for a strong start. A complete recovery from each of the five major extinctions required tens of millions of years. In particular, the Ordovician dip needed 25 million years, the Devonian 30 million years, the Permian and Triassic (combined because they were so close together in time) 100 million years, and the Cretaceous 20 million years. These figures should give pause to anyone who believes that what Homo sapiens destroys, Nature will redeem. Maybe so, but not within any length of time that has meaning for contemporary humanity."

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: Ermmmm An Ice Age is defined as any period where ice caps are present. Interglacial just means that the glaciers have retreated above the arctic circle.......and what warmed the earth to drive them there.

OK, fair enough, I just wiki'd it. But if the Earth's default climate is no ice caps, and we're an ice age species, then no ice caps is a bad thing for us.

Oh, and if it akes 100's of millions of years, explain the rather green and pleasant planet around us, a mere 65million years from the last mass extinction event.

I was relying on memory. My error, it takes tens of millions of years, but one recovery took 100 million years. here's the quote, from E.O. Wilson:

"To summarize: life was impoverished in five major events, and to lesser degree here and there around the world in countless other episodes. After each downturn it recovered to at least the original level of diversity. How long did it take for evolution to restore the losses after the first-order spasms? The number of families of animals living in the sea is as reliable a measure as we have been able to obtain from the existing fossil evidence. In general, five million years were only enough for a strong start. A complete recovery from each of the five major extinctions required tens of millions of years. In particular, the Ordovician dip needed 25 million years, the Devonian 30 million years, the Permian and Triassic (combined because they were so close together in time) 100 million years, and the Cretaceous 20 million years. These figures should give pause to anyone who believes that what Homo sapiens destroys, Nature will redeem. Maybe so, but not within any length of time that has meaning for contemporary humanity."

You're both wrong.......

...not if I firebomb them all, could do in a matter of weeks

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: Ermmmm An Ice Age is defined as any period where ice caps are present. Interglacial just means that the glaciers have retreated above the arctic circle.......and what warmed the earth to drive them there.

OK, fair enough, I just wiki'd it. But if the Earth's default climate is no ice caps, and we're an ice age species, then no ice caps is a bad thing for us.

Oh, and if it akes 100's of millions of years, explain the rather green and pleasant planet around us, a mere 65million years from the last mass extinction event.

I was relying on memory. My error, it takes tens of millions of years, but one recovery took 100 million years. here's the quote, from E.O. Wilson:

"To summarize: life was impoverished in five major events, and to lesser degree here and there around the world in countless other episodes. After each downturn it recovered to at least the original level of diversity. How long did it take for evolution to restore the losses after the first-order spasms? The number of families of animals living in the sea is as reliable a measure as we have been able to obtain from the existing fossil evidence. In general, five million years were only enough for a strong start. A complete recovery from each of the five major extinctions required tens of millions of years. In particular, the Ordovician dip needed 25 million years, the Devonian 30 million years, the Permian and Triassic (combined because they were so close together in time) 100 million years, and the Cretaceous 20 million years. These figures should give pause to anyone who believes that what Homo sapiens destroys, Nature will redeem. Maybe so, but not within any length of time that has meaning for contemporary humanity."

You're both wrong.......

...not if I firebomb them all, could do in a matter of weeks

No, I'm still right, because we're talking about recovery.

And really, with enough nukes, it shouldn't take too long...

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

CTB wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: The temperature varies over the course of geologic time. Species go extinct over the course of geologic time.

The difference this time is we've appropriated so much of the planet that affected species will have no way to migrate-- there will be no place to migrate to. Species will die. New species adapted to the hotter climate won't be evolve. The earth will be a poorer place for it. But that's OK as long as we have the freedom to burn oil until the last drop is gone? And then we'll stop, because we have no choice?

Biomes (forests, etc.) migrate. This time, they won't be able to, because we're standing in their path. Entire biomes will disappear...

And before that happens, our economies, and our ability to feed ourselves, and to have fresh water, will crash and burn.

But somehow it's all worth it...

Wow, some serious misconceptions are being cited as fact - pardon me for butting in here Comrade, it's not you that I'm singling out, but evolution and ice ages are kinda my thing (PhD and all).... what evidence is there new species adapted to a hotter environment won't evolve?

I’m relying on two phenomena as evidence. First, we’re in the midst of a great extinction as massive as the last five. Of course, as species die off, suddenly vacant niches will become available for exploitation… Except for the fact that species are dieing off because we’re appropriating their habitat. With the habitat gone, the niche disappears, so there’s no opportunity for species to evolve to fill that niche. Second, the loss of species across the board means there’s a loss of genetic material from which species can evolve to fill the vacant niches. As E.O. Wilson puts it, recovery from each of the last mass extinctions took on the order of 100 million years or so; new species may evolve, but not within a length of time that has any meaning for contemporary humanity.

Notwithstanding the fact that Wilson was not without critcs (the likes of Steven Jay Gould amongst them) to the theories you quote, you are making a huge leap in flawed logic here; if we are indeed in a naturally-occurring mass-extinction event, how can it possibly be due to human activity? The Holocene Mass-extinction Theory which apparently explains the current extinctions and the extinction of the Megafauna puts a bit of a downer on the idea that human activity is responsible for the 'current' extinction event - not a lot of petrochemical usage in the Pleistocene that I was aware of. Also, since it's only been 65MY since the last extinction event, I think mammals have done fairly well out of it, since by this logic species diversity still hasn't recovered from the KT event, wouldn't you agree?

One thing we have to look forward to is an increase in the rate of evolution thanks to higher levels of UV radiation (you know that hole in the ozone layer? That is speeding up the occurence of mutations, which have been recognised for years as the mechanism that drives evolution.)

Genetic mutation is the mechanism that drives evolution? I think at best there’s a highly overstated importance attached to genetic mutation. I would argue that natural selection, determined by fitness, is what drives evolution, with occasional leaps made possible through genetic mutation.

But what is the source of this genetic variation? No dispute at all that natural selection of the best fit drives evolution, but the genetic variation responsible for it is initiated by mutations, which isn't exactly a "highly overstated importance". Since Wiki has been cited before, you'll find this summary fairly sound: "Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of many mutations of small effect. However, macromutation is an alternative process for adaptation that involves a single, very large-scale mutation." (this is a quote from here)

This misconception that "humanity is killing the planet" smacks of an inflated sense of self-importance that some of us humans have. Why do we think that just because we do it, it's "unnatural"? Where exactly did humans evolve, in God's petri dish? There's a theory that humanity is little more than a noxious weed of a species destined to clear a path for the next 'dominant lifeform', expanding like a bacterial colony until the resources run out then dropping back to tiny pockets of isolated populations, if not entirely extinct. We won't kill the planet, we may momentarily speed up the mechanism that drives evolution, but that's it.

And what’s the point of killing off most of the earth’s species? What’s the point, for that matter, of killing ourselves off?

I was just trying to demonstrate what I regards as the overimportance placed on human 'non-natural' activity. Humans are after all just another form of life endemic to the earth, so by definition our activities, for better or worse, can never be regarded as unnatural.

As for global warming, this is far more complex than any of us are led to believe. I'm all for ensuring the next generation of humans is not impacted negatively by our unsustainable resource gorging, but consider this: 900 years ago Vikings (no, not Jarvis, though he is quite old) were cultivating crops in Greenland, which is now covered in ice. An inconvenient truth? You better believe it.

The minor climatic variations—a warmer period in Greenland before the 12th century, followed by a little ice age—were not long-term trends in the Earth’s climate. Global warming is. The earth has been a lot hotter than it is now, and a lot colder.

How can you possibly know this for sure? "They weren't long-term trends. This is". Just playing Devil's advocate here, but how can you state for sure we aren't currently experienceing 'minor climatic variations'? Caution also has to be applied given the miniscule sample size we have for weather records.

The oil companies believe that it’s in their short-term best interest for us to burn the last of the Earth’s oil, right down to the last drop. The question for us, as we ponder whether to burn the last of the Earth’s oil right down to the last drop, is whether extreme temperature change is in our long-term best interest.

A very interesting discussion this, although somewhat let down by my inability to quote previous posts properly, but hopefully this lot is largely comprehensible. Cheers CTB

CTB wrote: Notwithstanding the fact that Wilson was not without critcs (the likes of Steven Jay Gould amongst them) to the theories you quote, you are making a huge leap in flawed logic here; if we are indeed in a naturally-occurring mass-extinction event, how can it possibly be due to human activity?

Loss of habitat.

The Holocene Mass-extinction Theory which apparently explains the current extinctions and the extinction of the Megafauna puts a bit of a downer on the idea that human activity is responsible for the 'current' extinction event - not a lot of petrochemical usage in the Pleistocene that I was aware of.

I'm relying on memory here, but I believe that the two main factors driving the Pleistocene megafauna extinctions were climate change and human hunting.

Also, since it's only been 65MY since the last extinction event, I think mammals have done fairly well out of it, since by this logic species diversity still hasn't recovered from the KT event, wouldn't you agree?

That was my error, it was tens of millions of years for recovery from the Cretaceous event. But yes, mammals did quite well when the dinosaurs went extinct.

But what is the source of this genetic variation? No dispute at all that natural selection of the best fit drives evolution, but the genetic variation responsible for it is initiated by mutations, which isn't exactly a "highly overstated importance". Since Wiki has been cited before, you'll find this summary fairly sound: "Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of many mutations of small effect. However, macromutation is an alternative process for adaptation that involves a single, very large-scale mutation." (this is a quote from here)

As I understand it, variation is the result of genetic recombination. Sex for the rest of you lot. We're carrying around a lot of information within our genes, some of which is expressed physically, because those alleles are dominant, and some of which is passed on to the next generation, perhaps to appear as a physical expression if the next genetic recombination works out that way. If genetic variation is expressed in Boatraceface through an extraordinarily large cock that splits his foreskin, and in other Redcar males with varying cock sizes--some extraordinarily small, some extraordinarily average-- and if that extraordinarily large cock gives Boatraceface some survival advantage, he will pass that trait on to his offspring, and if that gives them a survival advantage, they will pass that trait on to their offspring. Eventually, all male inhabitants of Redcar will have extraordinarily large cocks.

I was just trying to demonstrate what I regards as the overimportance placed on human 'non-natural' activity. Humans are after all just another form of life endemic to the earth, so by definition our activities, for better or worse, can never be regarded as unnatural.

It's still an unnecessary-- and preventable-- occurrence. The difference between the previous 5 extinction events and this one is that for the first time, mass extinction is occurring through the activities of one of Earth's species.

As for global warming, this is far more complex than any of us are led to believe. I'm all for ensuring the next generation of humans is not impacted negatively by our unsustainable resource gorging, but consider this: 900 years ago Vikings (no, not Jarvis, though he is quite old) were cultivating crops in Greenland, which is now covered in ice. An inconvenient truth? You better believe it.

The minor climatic variations—a warmer period in Greenland before the 12th century, followed by a little ice age—were not long-term trends in the Earth’s climate. Global warming is. The earth has been a lot hotter than it is now, and a lot colder.

How can you possibly know this for sure? "They weren't long-term trends. This is". Just playing Devil's advocate here, but how can you state for sure we aren't currently experiencing 'minor climatic variations'?

I can't, and I don't know whether or not climatologists can, but when they have consensus that this is a serious problem, I don't need to go get a degree in climatology before I can make a decision.

Commie, you just aren't getting it mate.

to roughly quote you.... "maybe no ice caps is the correct condition of the planet but we have ice caps now so losing them is a bad thing."

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD THE EARTH CEASE TO BE DYNAMIC JUST COS WE ARE HERE NOW?????????

How unbelievably arrogant. The Earth has constant changed, but ow the great and amazing human race is here to maintain it at it's 20th century condition forever.

ludicrous nonsense.

Doctor? wrote: Commie, you just aren't getting it mate.

to roughly quote you.... "maybe no ice caps is the correct condition of the planet but we have ice caps now so losing them is a bad thing."

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD THE EARTH CEASE TO BE DYNAMIC JUST COS WE ARE HERE NOW?????????

It doesn't cease to. Volcanoes continue to erupt, humanity or no humanity. Tectonic plates still collide, humanity or no humanity.

The question isn't whether the Earth should cease to be dynamic; the question is whether we should continue a human activity that is going to make human life more difficult, and will lead to extinction for many species.

How unbelievably arrogant. The Earth has constant changed, but ow the great and amazing human race is here to maintain it at it's 20th century condition forever.

ludicrous nonsense.

I would argue that saying humanity is the only species affected is the unbelievably arrogant position.

And from the standpoint of our own species, yes, keeping the climatic conditions under which our species arose and to which our species is adapted-- especially when we have a choice in the matter-- is far more preferable to altering those climatic conditions to something more inhospitable for our species.

Kind of like keeping the oxygen content of our atmosphere is far more preferable for our species than replacing the oxygen with ammonia.

Our species evolved in the African planes, and lived through fully glacial phases of ice ages. So, we're fine with anyting from near boiling to below freezing.

So......who made the ice sheets dissappear before, and why are we still here.

SPECIES ARE UNIMPORTANT, ONLY THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID, THE TRUE LIFEROM OF THE PLANET MATTERS.

100 years, the time we have been and will be poluters for is an unmeasurable amount of time.

And do you refute that the sun is getting hotter, and that this might make the Earth warmer too? Presumably once we run out of oil, and the planet continues to warm, we'll send greenbrains to Sol to cool it down?

CTB wrote: Notwithstanding the fact that Wilson was not without critcs (the likes of Steven Jay Gould amongst them) to the theories you quote, you are making a huge leap in flawed logic here; if we are indeed in a naturally-occurring mass-extinction event, how can it possibly be due to human activity?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Loss of habitat.

What's that got to do with climate change though? That's the point of the thread afterall. The fossil record implies accelerated speciation could be a result of dynamic climatic conditions, so pairing habitat loss with climate change seems a flawed argument to me; that's the point I'm trying to make. No argument whatsoever that humans have had a huge impact on habitat loss, (and to a lesser degree, the creation of habitats too - check out your local landfill for a species-rich habitat).

The Holocene Mass-extinction Theory which apparently explains the current extinctions and the extinction of the Megafauna puts a bit of a downer on the idea that human activity is responsible for the 'current' extinction event - not a lot of petrochemical usage in the Pleistocene that I was aware of.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I'm relying on memory here, but I believe that the two main factors driving the Pleistocene megafauna extinctions were climate change and human hunting.

Very contentious area of research, with many theories. However, would you consider the possibility that the same climate change you cite here as contributing to the megafaunal extinction is part of the current climatic phenomena?

.....

But what is the source of this genetic variation? No dispute at all that natural selection of the best fit drives evolution, but the genetic variation responsible for it is initiated by mutations, which isn't exactly a "highly overstated importance". Since Wiki has been cited before, you'll find this summary fairly sound: "Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of many mutations of small effect. However, macromutation is an alternative process for adaptation that involves a single, very large-scale mutation." (this is a quote from here)

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: As I understand it, variation is the result of genetic recombination. Sex for the rest of you lot. We're carrying around a lot of information within our genes, some of which is expressed physically, because those alleles are dominant, and some of which is passed on to the next generation, perhaps to appear as a physical expression if the next genetic recombination works out that way. If genetic variation is expressed in Boatraceface through an extraordinarily large cock that splits his foreskin, and in other Redcar males with varying cock sizes--some extraordinarily small, some extraordinarily average-- and if that extraordinarily large cock gives Boatraceface some survival advantage, he will pass that trait on to his offspring, and if that gives them a survival advantage, they will pass that trait on to their offspring. Eventually, all male inhabitants of Redcar will have extraordinarily large cocks.

I'm really reluctant to continue with the analogy of Boaty's cock here, but what you are describing is the inheritance and expression of genes already in existence in the genepool. The point I'm getting at is that mutations add new characteristics to this genepool spontaneously that are not an effect of recombination of exiting characteristics. For example a mutation that is expressed as, say, males having two cocks (stay with me here). If this 2-knob characteristic is expressed and turns out to be a survival advantage (can't think of one just yet, would make post-pub weeing a nightmare), then they will pass that trait on to their offspring, etc. No dispute over the process itself, though.

I was just trying to demonstrate what I regards as the overimportance placed on human 'non-natural' activity. Humans are after all just another form of life endemic to the earth, so by definition our activities, for better or worse, can never be regarded as unnatural.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: It's still an unnecessary-- and preventable-- occurrence. The difference between the previous 5 extinction events and this one is that for the first time, mass extinction is occurring through the activities of one of Earth's species.

Once again, depends on how much credence you put in the mass extinction theory. I think of it more as yes, we are able to recognise that it is a preventable occurence, but is it an innate characteristic of humans to do anything to prevent it? This is getting more philosophical than scientific, but it's still interesting to discuss.

As for global warming, this is far more complex than any of us are led to believe. I'm all for ensuring the next generation of humans is not impacted negatively by our unsustainable resource gorging, but consider this: 900 years ago Vikings (no, not Jarvis, though he is quite old) were cultivating crops in Greenland, which is now covered in ice. An inconvenient truth? You better believe it.

The minor climatic variations—a warmer period in Greenland before the 12th century, followed by a little ice age—were not long-term trends in the Earth’s climate. Global warming is. The earth has been a lot hotter than it is now, and a lot colder.

How can you possibly know this for sure? "They weren't long-term trends. This is". Just playing Devil's advocate here, but how can you state for sure we aren't currently experiencing 'minor climatic variations'?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I can't, and I don't know whether or not climatologists can, but when they have consensus that this is a serious problem, I don't need to go get a degree in climatology before I can make a decision.

..and I'm not for a second suggesting that is the case. It's not my intention to make this discourse argumentative, but I guess all I'm saying is that anyone can make a decision as to what theory they believe, or perhaps formulate their own, but that doesn't translate as the right to regurgitate it as fact - to presume we know the answer to everything is the antithesis of the nature of science. This isn't targeted specifically at you Comrade as you clearly have given this thought and research; it's a pity more don't do the same. CTB

Sorry, I right-royally fucked up the format of that last post...and I can't be arsed fixing it CTB

CTB wrote:

.....

But what is the source of this genetic variation? No dispute at all that natural selection of the best fit drives evolution, but the genetic variation responsible for it is initiated by mutations, which isn't exactly a "highly overstated importance". Since Wiki has been cited before, you'll find this summary fairly sound: "Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of many mutations of small effect. However, macromutation is an alternative process for adaptation that involves a single, very large-scale mutation." (this is a quote from here)

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: As I understand it, variation is the result of genetic recombination. Sex for the rest of you lot. We're carrying around a lot of information within our genes, some of which is expressed physically, because those alleles are dominant, and some of which is passed on to the next generation, perhaps to appear as a physical expression if the next genetic recombination works out that way. If genetic variation is expressed in Boatraceface through an extraordinarily large cock that splits his foreskin, and in other Redcar males with varying cock sizes--some extraordinarily small, some extraordinarily average-- and if that extraordinarily large cock gives Boatraceface some survival advantage, he will pass that trait on to his offspring, and if that gives them a survival advantage, they will pass that trait on to their offspring. Eventually, all male inhabitants of Redcar will have extraordinarily large cocks.

I'm really reluctant to continue with the analogy of Boaty's cock here, but what you are describing is the inheritance and expression of genes already in existence in the genepool. The point I'm getting at is that mutations add new characteristics to this genepool spontaneously that are not an effect of recombination of exiting characteristics. For example a mutation that is expressed as, say, males having two cocks (stay with me here). If this 2-knob characteristic is expressed and turns out to be a survival advantage (can't think of one just yet, would make post-pub weeing a nightmare), then they will pass that trait on to their offspring, etc. No dispute over the process itself, though.

Exactly... (continuing with the analogy)...Lets say the small cock gene does not give an advantage to survival then by your reckoning comrade it would be replaced by the dormant big cock gene and that would be passed down...thus creating a world with only large cocked males...This is not however true.(Sighs)

On a more sensible note If this was how evolution worked then surely a HUGE boon to survival would be for evolution to rid us of faulty genes that cause cancer in our offspring. Unfortunately it is not

Can you make your nipple tassels spin in different directions at the same time though Jeff?

Alas I was hoping you could give me a few pointers

not like this though

:vomit:

CTB I applaud your reluctance to continue an analogy with my knob.Gentleman

Comrade for you to drag my 12 incher by its battle scarred,and now discussion weary foreskin into your floundering climate change debate shows wild speculative tendencies.I'm nearer 10 ..You sir, are a cad and a bounder!

Joking apart,a one time, tight foreskin does'nt have to mean an unfeasibly bulbus bell-end.I can see the logic, but no I am not a horse cock mutant :)

Minx,picture won't show up on my screen when clicked.what is it? Has it been the dreaded,m-o-d-e-r-a-t-e-d?

Doctor? wrote: Fact: this is the interglacial phase of an ice age.

Until the ice caps are TOTALLY GONE we should not worry about global warming.

Humans are such arogant cunts, they think that a planet that can withstand gamma ray bursts, coronal mass ejections, cometry impacts, and even it's own inside spewing out in flood bassalt planes....is going to blow up and fall into the sun because we drive SUV's...sorry 4wheel drives, forgot I speak English there.

I appreciate we're doing no good, but it's only ourselves who will really suffer. And hell slap it into us. Easiest way would be to use electric cars fueled from atomic powerstations, as all nuclear stations do is REDUCE the overall amount of radiactive material on Earth.

Anyway, like I say, the Earth only has 30 or 40 years of this shit to deal with, then we run out of fossil fuels anyway.

With regards to hydrogen powered cars.....what a bunch of spastics the oil companies are. Instead of blocking this technology at every turn, the sensible option would be to exploit their existing infrastructure to ensure that when Hydrogen is our primary fuel ( which, considering it is the most abundant material in the universe by a couple of orders of magnitude is going to be our fuel for a long time), they are still in a good market position.

So, WAS venus's "runaway greenhouse effect" caused by cars?

BTW, trees are useless at air recycling too, algae is responsible for more oxygen than all the other plant life on the planet, so fuck the rainforest, and lets grow pondweed.

Besides, I live in Ireland.....Global warming? BOUT FUCKIN TIME!

The Earth will survive with or without us but its the thin skin on the outside of the onion, the atmosphere, that we're stuffing up yet need to be able to survive. There's no debate that global warming might or might not be happening, that was one of the soundbites from An Inconvenient Truth - it is happening. It's just about what is plausibly deniable by us the polluters.

As an Irishman you have a vested interest in all of this! The Greenland ice cap melts at an accelerated rate and the cold water plume entering the sea completely takes out the Gulfstream, that warm current thing that keeps you mild and wet there. Then you'll have a Shipping News type climate instead of the South Pacific one you're hoping for! Its not my field but the ice ages come and go, there have been six in the last 650,000 years I think, and there have been mini ice ages in between too. There were periods in the Precambrian era, more than 650 million years ago when it was Snowball Earth with just the tropics poking out from under the ice and only algae were alive then. This is the first ice age whose end is being accelerated by a living species at an unheard of rate so no-one is sure what is going to come from that.

Your oil might only last a few decades but there's plenty more known and still to be found and lots more natural gas out there than oil anyway. The real bummer is that China and India have got huge coal reserves and the baton of World's Best Polluter is going to be passed on to them by the US in the next decade or so. You could say this is the 'Golden Hour' for patient Earth. The Chinese don't and won't give a hoot about what anyone says to them about pollution even if they did sign and 'ratify' Kyoto.

I've heard it said that sea level will rise 20 metres if the the polar and Greenland icecaps melt so there will be no more Noolers from the Netherlands and a hundred million Bangladeshis knocking on everyone's doors looking for digs, amongst many others. No more streets of San Francisco, Shanghai, Beijing....if you're wondering why they're stalling the World Trade Centre rebuild, its because it will be cheaper to build a lighthouse! We love to build houses and live by the sea, thats's a status symbol in the Western world and an economic need in the Third World. A lot of people are going to have to up and start again. Our whole coastline here in SA will be f***ed! That's where the debate is at now - the economic cost of doing nothing now and paying later for the consequences or doing something now. Its a moral choice but we're mostly immoral and selfish bastards. Al Gore calls himself the 'former next president of the United States', that's pretty bloody sad in retrospect!

Earth is the 'Goldilocks' planet, its bowl of porridge is just at the right temperature. Venus is too hot for water and more volcanically active so more methane and CO2 getting mixed in with the steam. No cars on Venus, they'd all melt!

bring it on.

i'd love to go down south for a nice summer holiday one day.

Steve Lea wrote:

Doctor? wrote: Fact: this is the interglacial phase of an ice age.

Until the ice caps are TOTALLY GONE we should not worry about global warming.

Humans are such arogant cunts, they think that a planet that can withstand gamma ray bursts, coronal mass ejections, cometry impacts, and even it's own inside spewing out in flood bassalt planes....is going to blow up and fall into the sun because we drive SUV's...sorry 4wheel drives, forgot I speak English there.

I appreciate we're doing no good, but it's only ourselves who will really suffer. And hell slap it into us. Easiest way would be to use electric cars fueled from atomic powerstations, as all nuclear stations do is REDUCE the overall amount of radiactive material on Earth.

Anyway, like I say, the Earth only has 30 or 40 years of this shit to deal with, then we run out of fossil fuels anyway.

With regards to hydrogen powered cars.....what a bunch of spastics the oil companies are. Instead of blocking this technology at every turn, the sensible option would be to exploit their existing infrastructure to ensure that when Hydrogen is our primary fuel ( which, considering it is the most abundant material in the universe by a couple of orders of magnitude is going to be our fuel for a long time), they are still in a good market position.

So, WAS venus's "runaway greenhouse effect" caused by cars?

BTW, trees are useless at air recycling too, algae is responsible for more oxygen than all the other plant life on the planet, so fuck the rainforest, and lets grow pondweed.

Besides, I live in Ireland.....Global warming? BOUT FUCKIN TIME!

The Earth will survive with or without us but its the thin skin on the outside of the onion, the atmosphere, that we're stuffing up yet need to be able to survive. There's no debate that global warming might or might not be happening, that was one of the soundbites from An Inconvenient Truth - it is happening. It's just about what is plausibly deniable by us the polluters.

As an Irishman you have a vested interest in all of this! The Greenland ice cap melts at an accelerated rate and the cold water plume entering the sea completely takes out the Gulfstream, that warm current thing that keeps you mild and wet there. Then you'll have a Shipping News type climate instead of the South Pacific one you're hoping for! Its not my field but the ice ages come and go, there have been six in the last 650,000 years I think, and there have been mini ice ages in between too. There were periods in the Precambrian era, more than 650 million years ago when it was Snowball Earth with just the tropics poking out from under the ice and only algae were alive then. This is the first ice age whose end is being accelerated by a living species at an unheard of rate so no-one is sure what is going to come from that.

Your oil might only last a few decades but there's plenty more known and still to be found and lots more natural gas out there than oil anyway. The real bummer is that China and India have got huge coal reserves and the baton of World's Best Polluter is going to be passed on to them by the US in the next decade or so. You could say this is the 'Golden Hour' for patient Earth. The Chinese don't and won't give a hoot about what anyone says to them about pollution even if they did sign and 'ratify' Kyoto.

I've heard it said that sea level will rise 20 metres if the the polar and Greenland icecaps melt so there will be no more Noolers from the Netherlands and a hundred million Bangladeshis knocking on everyone's doors looking for digs, amongst many others. No more streets of San Francisco, Shanghai, Beijing....if you're wondering why they're stalling the World Trade Centre rebuild, its because it will be cheaper to build a lighthouse! We love to build houses and live by the sea, thats's a status symbol in the Western world and an economic need in the Third World. A lot of people are going to have to up and start again. Our whole coastline here in SA will be f***ed! That's where the debate is at now - the economic cost of doing nothing now and paying later for the consequences or doing something now. Its a moral choice but we're mostly immoral and selfish bastards. Al Gore calls himself the 'former next president of the United States', that's pretty bloody sad in retrospect!

Earth is the 'Goldilocks' planet, its bowl of porridge is just at the right temperature. Venus is too hot for water and more volcanically active so more methane and CO2 getting mixed in with the steam. No cars on Venus, they'd all melt!

give us a three line summary please Ste. i don't read all that. never have. never will. i await your advices.

J.A.K wrote:

give us a three line summary please Ste. i don't read all that. never have. never will. i await your advices.

Get a season ticket high in the stands at the New Anfield! Maybe they'll be a water polo team by then anyway...letting in six isn't so bad in that game

That about covers it!

So...errrrm how come no one has ever bleated when the sea was dropping? Oh yes cos THAT sort of change suits us. Sigh.

I just do not accept it is our job to keep the Earth totally frozen in it's exact current state "right, that's enough developement for one planet, you can stop now, we quite like it".

And what twat said no life had ever affected the Earth before? LOLx50

I give up on you, you're right, man haas the power and the right to say what lives and dies and we should keep this planet just how we like it cos it's ours, and it's SOOOO fragile that only man can stop it from going pop and dissappearing.

Everyone has been acting like I do not believe it's happening, course it is...it happened before like in the Inidian flood bassalt event, bit more Co2 released then and a bit quicker....but fuck me the planet still has life.

Just go on acting like a bunch of Christians "god put this planet here for us, WE say if it lives or dies, it's within our will"

When the ice caps are gone, we'll talk again, for now I'm freezing cos we're in an ice age.

Bet you are sorry you asked the question in the first place Cambo

Nah, he loves getting stuck into stuff like this. That man is a veritable mine of information!

Doctor? wrote: So...errrrm how come no one has ever bleated when the sea was dropping? Oh yes cos THAT sort of change suits us. Sigh.

I just do not accept it is our job to keep the Earth totally frozen in it's exact current state "right, that's enough developement for one planet, you can stop now, we quite like it".

And what twat said no life had ever affected the Earth before? LOLx50

I give up on you, you're right, man haas the power and the right to say what lives and dies and we should keep this planet just how we like it cos it's ours, and it's SOOOO fragile that only man can stop it from going pop and dissappearing.

Everyone has been acting like I do not believe it's happening, course it is...it happened before like in the Inidian flood bassalt event, bit more Co2 released then and a bit quicker....but fuck me the planet still has life.

Just go on acting like a bunch of Christians "god put this planet here for us, WE say if it lives or dies, it's within our will"

When the ice caps are gone, we'll talk again, for now I'm freezing cos we're in an ice age.

I expect there were quite a few Neanderthals bitching round the fire back then No one said no life affected the Earth before but we're the most invasive parasite there's been here. There are cycles to what goes on on Earth which we are changing. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are half as much again as they've ever been in any of the last six ice ages. By 2050 they will be more than double anything recorded. That's us that's done that. The Deccan coincided with the Chicxulub meteor impact so CO2 probably didnt have much to do with anything back then. Man has never been around whilst a flood basalt event has been going on on land, the last big one was about 11 million years ago in Oregon and Washington. The issue is that we are making the Earth a more difficult place to live on for the people who come after us, its got fuck all to do with Christianity or our 'power' here. We have some say as to how difficult exactly, that's all.

I'm not saying it's a good thing and I'm not saying we should not make an effort. What I AM saying is.....running around creaming "the end is nigh for planet Earth" is just insane gibberish.

Don't cows make more greenhouse gasses than industry anyway.....cut out the beef burgers folks.

As I said, or at least alluded to, above, the amount of money being spent on campaigns, and research and ways to price cars of the road and ways to make petrol burn better.....should all be spent to hasten the move to hydrogen power (at least until such times as a practical method of nuclear fusion is developed). Although I am quite sure someone will yap about there being a bit of water vapour in the exhaust.

BTW, does anyone know how much CO2 ( and indeed other greenhouse gasses) Toba fired out when it reduced the human race to about 10-100,000 individuals about 70,000 years ago....or more to the point....how much the yellowstone caldera has lined up ready to go ( I wanna be around for that bang....can't fucking WAIT to see the greenpeacists rushing to Yellowstone to protest it's vile and irresponsible pollution).

I think the point I have been trying to get at all along is that we really are a race of retards, we have not only been daft and lazy, and made a mess, but we're now firing every kind of wooly thinking at the problem instead of getting some perspective.

I don't drive, and I have quite a garden, so my "carbon footprint" (lol) is quite mild...being basically down to the power my studio and computers use....and as I said above, if we spent some cash on fusion power, that would be the most pollution free power possible (unless greenpeace fancy campaigning to have the sun shut down :D ), I mean yes, there is radiation, but the only radioactive waste will be some mildly hot bits of reactor as and when they need swapped out.

BTW, as for Fission, might I point out that each fission reactor REDUCES the total amount of radioactivity on the planet (albeit, they are, in reality, run by a bunch of cash grabbing, shortcut taking cunts, and are dangerous as hell in such hands).

The ONLY thing that will finally finish this planet off is a nearby gamma ray burst ( and thank fook there's nothing too near that can kick one off), or of course the sun wearing out....how come no one worries about that? Human silliness again, we can see a few decades ahead and think we are great, but wont think beyond that cos it's unimportant.

This planet, is a cradle, nothing more, and while we shouldn;t shit in the nest, we shouldn't be thinking of living our entire existence in it either, sooner or later, we must move out, or we WILL die, that is a 100% fact. If humanity stays on earth it's entire struggle will be for nothing, it'll vanish from the universe before existing long enough to even register on it.

So, the Dr's advice?

make an effort, but calm the FUCK DOWN, in the big scheme of things, it's not really THAT important.

BTW, I note no one has said dick about the recorded rise in the temperature of the sun.....but I have an experiemt for you...turn your heating up and see if you feel warmer, then switch it off....now put some loft insulation in and start from a cold house again....did some insulation holding your heat in heat tour house up, or did turning the heating up do it? the sun is our only source of heat. Greenhouse gasses are just loft lagging.

Doctor? wrote: I'm not saying it's a good thing and I'm not saying we should not make an effort. What I AM saying is.....running around creaming "the end is nigh for planet Earth" is just insane gibberish.

Don't cows make more greenhouse gasses than industry anyway.....cut out the beef burgers folks.

....or more to the point....how much the yellowstone caldera has lined up ready to go ( I wanna be around for that bang....can't fucking WAIT to see the greenpeacists rushing to Yellowstone to protest it's vile and irresponsible pollution).

I think the point I have been trying to get at all along is that we really are a race of retards, we have not only been daft and lazy, and made a mess, but we're now firing every kind of wooly thinking at the problem instead of getting some perspective.

I don't drive, and I have quite a garden, so my "carbon footprint" (lol) is quite mild...being basically down to the power my studio and computers use....and as I said above, if we spent some cash on fusion power, that would be the most pollution free power possible (unless greenpeace fancy campaigning to have the sun shut down :D ), I mean yes, there is radiation, but the only radioactive waste will be some mildly hot bits of reactor as and when they need swapped out.

BTW, as for Fission, might I point out that each fission reactor REDUCES the total amount of radioactivity on the planet (albeit, they are, in reality, run by a bunch of cash grabbing, shortcut taking cunts, and are dangerous as hell in such hands).

The ONLY thing that will finally finish this planet off is a nearby gamma ray burst ( and thank fook there's nothing too near that can kick one off), or of course the sun wearing out....how come no one worries about that? Human silliness again, we can see a few decades ahead and think we are great, but wont think beyond that cos it's unimportant.

This planet, is a cradle, nothing more, and while we shouldn;t shit in the nest, we shouldn't be thinking of living our entire existence in it either, sooner or later, we must move out, or we WILL die, that is a 100% fact. If humanity stays on earth it's entire struggle will be for nothing, it'll vanish from the universe before existing long enough to even register on it.

So, the Dr's advice?

make an effort, but calm the FUCK DOWN, in the big scheme of things, it's not really THAT important.

BTW, I note no one has said dick about the recorded rise in the temperature of the sun.....but I have an experiemt for you...turn your heating up and see if you feel warmer, then switch it off....now put some loft insulation in and start from a cold house again....did some insulation holding your heat in heat tour house up, or did turning the heating up do it? the sun is our only source of heat. Greenhouse gasses are just loft lagging.

Er, the Earth's core is about 4000C, thats why its molten. If you go down a deep gold mine here the rock temperature is already 70C and that's got nothing to do with the sun, a lot of our heat comes from below. CO2 stops the heat radiating out and icecaps that reflect some of the sun's energy won't if they're not there anymore etc.

There was a Beeb docudrama on Yellowstone going bang and the real reamer is that the cloud of ash and dust poisons a lot of the fresh water supplies over most of North America and takes out agriculture.

People should make up their own minds but to me this is a real issue now like nothing else. An Inconvenient Truth is a non-preaching, non- the end is nigh but jawdropping film and well worth checking out - there's a torrent of it on www.moviex.info, sure Mr Gore wouldn't mind anyone grabbing it. The only advice the film gives is at the end and amounts to a few simple tips on what individuals can do in their everyday lives to drag things back. I really don't give a monkey's how we'll survive in half a million years or so, that's a separate issue.

A couple things to note:

1. the Earth's core is not molton, but solid (due to the high pressure)

2. How is it that sea levels are going to raise since approx 85% of the glaciers that are going to melt are in the ocean already.....common Physics with displacement will tell anyone that the ocean levels aren't going to rise like some people claim.

EdelBrock wrote: A couple things to note:

1. the Earth's core is not molton, but solid (due to the high pressure)

2. How is it that sea levels are going to raise since approx 85% of the glaciers that are going to melt are in the ocean already.....common Physics with displacement will tell anyone that the ocean levels aren't going to rise like some people claim.

ouch, spanked by a jarhead.

Very true indeed, your G+T doesn;t overflow if you leave it sitting.

However, that only TRULY goes for the Arctic, much of the Antarctic ice is on land, and therefor not currently displacing the oceans WILL cause a rise in sea level.

My brain's all wooly now, I can't think what if any effect the fact that ice is less dense than water will mean for the Arctic.....my guts says sod all, sa displacement woirks by mass not volume (ie if you have ablock of ice weight 100 tons, it displaces 100tons of water in order to float, regardless of volume)....but right now my brain's gone all un-scientific for a while. Possibly a good time to watch Star Trek

CTB wrote:

CTB wrote: Notwithstanding the fact that Wilson was not without critcs (the likes of Steven Jay Gould amongst them) to the theories you quote, you are making a huge leap in flawed logic here; if we are indeed in a naturally-occurring mass-extinction event, how can it possibly be due to human activity?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Loss of habitat.

What's that got to do with climate change though? That's the point of the thread afterall.

I've never said that the current mass extinction event is due to climate change. I have said that we will lose more species as a result of climate change. And as long as humanity is appropriating the Earth's landmass for itself, new species won't be able to evolve to replace the lost species, simply because those habitats are being converted to human use.

CTB wrote: The fossil record implies accelerated speciation could be a result of dynamic climatic conditions, so pairing habitat loss with climate change seems a flawed argument to me; that's the point I'm trying to make.

I agree about accelerated speciation , except that we're interfering with the process now. For example, how likely is it that, if the habitat existed-- a big if, considering that species are dieing off because we're appropriating their habitat-- we would "allow" a species like the sabre-tooth tiger to evolve in, say, London, or New York? Not very likely.

That problem-- ot wanting certain species in the first place-- aside, the real problem is lack of habitat. We're converting habitat to human use, and that is why species are dieing off, and if the habitat no longer exists, then there is no niche for newly evolved species to fill. Thus, because there is no niche to fill, new species won't evolve.

Well, new species of cockroach and rat might, but that's hardly a consolation for the loss of all of the other species

CTB wrote: No argument whatsoever that humans have had a huge impact on habitat loss, (and to a lesser degree, the creation of habitats too - check out your local landfill for a species-rich habitat).

The Holocene Mass-extinction Theory which apparently explains the current extinctions and the extinction of the Megafauna puts a bit of a downer on the idea that human activity is responsible for the 'current' extinction event - not a lot of petrochemical usage in the Pleistocene that I was aware of.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I'm relying on memory here, but I believe that the two main factors driving the Pleistocene megafauna extinctions were climate change and human hunting.

Very contentious area of research, with many theories. However, would you consider the possibility that the same climate change you cite here as contributing to the megafaunal extinction is part of the current climatic phenomena?

I think it's background noise that's been completely drowned out by human activity.

CTB wrote:

But what is the source of this genetic variation? No dispute at all that natural selection of the best fit drives evolution, but the genetic variation responsible for it is initiated by mutations, which isn't exactly a "highly overstated importance". Since Wiki has been cited before, you'll find this summary fairly sound: "Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of many mutations of small effect. However, macromutation is an alternative process for adaptation that involves a single, very large-scale mutation." (this is a quote from here)

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: As I understand it, variation is the result of genetic recombination. Sex for the rest of you lot. We're carrying around a lot of information within our genes, some of which is expressed physically, because those alleles are dominant, and some of which is passed on to the next generation, perhaps to appear as a physical expression if the next genetic recombination works out that way. If genetic variation is expressed in Boatraceface through an extraordinarily large cock that splits his foreskin, and in other Redcar males with varying cock sizes--some extraordinarily small, some extraordinarily average-- and if that extraordinarily large cock gives Boatraceface some survival advantage, he will pass that trait on to his offspring, and if that gives them a survival advantage, they will pass that trait on to their offspring. Eventually, all male inhabitants of Redcar will have extraordinarily large cocks.

I'm really reluctant to continue with the analogy of Boaty's cock here, but what you are describing is the inheritance and expression of genes already in existence in the genepool. The point I'm getting at is that mutations add new characteristics to this genepool spontaneously that are not an effect of recombination of exiting characteristics. For example a mutation that is expressed as, say, males having two cocks (stay with me here). If this 2-knob characteristic is expressed and turns out to be a survival advantage (can't think of one just yet, would make post-pub weeing a nightmare), then they will pass that trait on to their offspring, etc. No dispute over the process itself, though.

OK, fair enough point.

But I think in the larger scheme of things, it's the variation all of us carry within us that drives most of natural selection. For example, getting away from cocks and going back to red beaks/yellow beaks, within a population of birds there may be a range of alleles that allow for beak color ranging from pale yellow to bright red. Most birds in that population will have medium yellow beaks. Some will have slightly paler yellow beaks, and some will have slightly more orange beaks. That's the variation in phenotypes (the physical expression of the genes.). But a bird with a yellow beak may have recessive genes for a pale yellow beak, while another bird with a yellow beak may have recessive genes for an orange beak. Occasionally, offspring will be born with those phenotypes (pale yellow beak, orange beak.). If the orange beak confers some sort of advantage to those offspring, possibly as a result of changing environmental conditions, then that bird's offspring will be more likely to survive to reproduce, and the alleles for orange beak will be passed on to another generation. If orange beak continues to be an advantage, over time, more and more of the population will have the orange beak phenotype.

As I understand it, that is a far more common mechanism for evolution than mutation, which more often than not is unsuccessful.

CTB wrote:

I was just trying to demonstrate what I regards as the overimportance placed on human 'non-natural' activity. Humans are after all just another form of life endemic to the earth, so by definition our activities, for better or worse, can never be regarded as unnatural.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: It's still an unnecessary-- and preventable-- occurrence. The difference between the previous 5 extinction events and this one is that for the first time, mass extinction is occurring through the activities of one of Earth's species.

Once again, depends on how much credence you put in the mass extinction theory. I think of it more as yes, we are able to recognise that it is a preventable occurence, but is it an innate characteristic of humans to do anything to prevent it? This is getting more philosophical than scientific, but it's still interesting to discuss.

Well, according to the Gaia hypothesis, the Earth functions as an organism (this may have analogy to some Asian religions that focus on the "one-ness" of all things.). So on the one hand, one could say that humans altering the climate is a natural process. And if it's a harmful process, Gaia will respond in ways to counter that. Perhaps in ways that snuff out the human species. or perhaps, the "green" counter to the threat of climate change is also a part of nature-- Gaia's response.

As long as we're getting philosophical.... :)

A tree has fallen onto a power line in Builth Wells in S Wales.

Fucking trees are always falling over - they're a menace. You wouldn't get planning or building regulation approval to build anything like the size of most of them.

Chop them all down I say.

Dropping their fucking leaves all over the place and getting cats stuck in them.

Doctor? wrote: ouch, spanked by a jarhead.

None of those kinky butt camp shenanigans here, please!

Minx wrote: On a more sensible note If this was how evolution worked then surely a HUGE boon to survival would be for evolution to rid us of faulty genes that cause cancer in our offspring. Unfortunately it is not

Fitness is survival to reproduction. In the case of humans, that means surviving long enough to reproduce and raise our children. After we've reproduced, we've done our job, and if we contract a horrible disease at that point, it doesn't affect the survival of the species. In fact, a horrible disease that kills off all of the older members of a species may be a benefit to the species as a whole, because it makes room for the newer members.

Why don't you all fuck off and write your essays on a fucking retard hippy site and let us lot get on with chatting one another up and talking about getting pissed?

Just a thought.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: ouch, spanked by a jarhead.

None of those kinky butt camp shenanigans here, please!

LOL, you can talk

BTW, I don;t think you are still grasping where new genes come from, you're still thinking in purely evolutionary terms without thinking biochemistry.

As to extinction......welll humans are tossers in that too....covered in fur, or cute, or able to spit out the top of it's head...save it save it save it....but viri have mass genoicde campaigns mounted on them....you don;t think smallpox loves it's mummy too? ;)

And anyway....if we live, and other species die out at our hands......in which way is that new or unnatural, I was under the impression that's how natural selection operated. Nature's a bitch.

hehehe, like Mr Burns says...she started the battle for survival, but she wants help now she's losing :D

Oh dear. I knew I shouldn't have changed the example from cocks to beaks.

BIGINOIL wrote: Why don't you all fuck off and write your essays on a fucking retard hippy site and let us lot get on with chatting one another up and talking about getting pissed?

Just a thought.

Being a pain in the ass is what i do best, cope with it.

Doctor? wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: ouch, spanked by a jarhead.

None of those kinky butt camp shenanigans here, please!

LOL, you can talk

BTW, I don;t think you are still grasping where new genes come from, you're still thinking in purely evolutionary terms without thinking biochemistry.

New genes, yes. All I'm saying is that phenotypic variation through genetic recombination is far more common than a mutation that confers a survival advantage.

And anyway....if we live, and other species die out at our hands......in which way is that new or unnatural, I was under the impression that's how natural selection operated. Nature's a bitch.

That's not natural selection. Natural selection is the passing on of successful phenotypic variations.

Killing other members of species is typically, but not always necessary for survival (seed, nut and fruit eaters don't kill), unless you can photosynthesize.

Killing entire species off can be a natural process, it's called competitive exclusion.

Causing mass extinctions is competitive exclusion gone haywire. We've become a cancer on the planet.

Doctor? wrote:

BIGINOIL wrote: Why don't you all fuck off and write your essays on a fucking retard hippy site and let us lot get on with chatting one another up and talking about getting pissed?

Just a thought.

Being a pain in the ass is what i do best, cope with it.

More jarhead fun?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

BIGINOIL wrote: Why don't you all fuck off and write your essays on a fucking retard hippy site and let us lot get on with chatting one another up and talking about getting pissed?

Just a thought.

Being a pain in the ass is what i do best, cope with it.

More jarhead fun?

Hey,hey now! I'm a giver.......

.......not a taker

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

BIGINOIL wrote: Why don't you all fuck off and write your essays on a fucking retard hippy site and let us lot get on with chatting one another up and talking about getting pissed?

Just a thought.

Being a pain in the ass is what i do best, cope with it.

More jarhead fun?

Hey,hey now! I'm a giver.......

.......not a taker

Ice age coming, ice age coming Let me hear both sides Let me hear both sides Let me hear both..

Ice age coming, ice age coming Throw me in the fire Throw me in the fire Throw me in the..

We're not scaremongering This is really happening, happening We're not scaremongering This is really happening, happening

not a bad thread this,well from what i could gleen from it. must admit im with the doc on this,the universe(our planet included) does its own thing,and if you want to be along for the ride its gonna be a bumpy one. now see that global warming? imagine it as the school yard bully (try it),you know, the one everyone was scared of at school,and the very same one that we are all being stealth taxed on. now most school bullies have a sidekick,usually a little cunt that would stir up trouble and hide behind the bully. ENTER THE THREAD, "E.M.DEGREDATION". well we are talking doom n gloom so lets chuck this little swine in n all eh. the boffins that have been studying the earths em field have noticed a distinct drop over the last 50 yrs orr so in the fields strength. this field helps to protect good ol earth from harmfull solar radiation ect. so basically if it packs up we are fucked. its currently being summised that our own use of electricity on the planet itself is somehow having an effect on our sheild so to speak. some scientists belive that something similar had happened to mars loooooooong ago , hence most of its atmosphere has been blown away,but as yet there is no solid evidence that mars even had an em feild similar to earths ect. so there you go,if global warming dont get yer the solar radiation will. so if i could give you one piece of advice for the future SUNSCREEN would be it.

EdelBrock wrote: A couple things to note:

1. the Earth's core is not molton, but solid (due to the high pressure)

2. How is it that sea levels are going to raise since approx 85% of the glaciers that are going to melt are in the ocean already.....common Physics with displacement will tell anyone that the ocean levels aren't going to rise like some people claim.

Er, I don't think so - only the inner core is 'solid', the outer 95% is molten or 'plastic' like.

Greenland's ice cap is up to 3km thick and Antarctica's up to 5km - there's 50 million cubic kilometres of ice there, mostly on land. The Arctic ice cap is only a few metres thick so only about 25000 cubic kilometres.

Steve Lea wrote:

Er, I don't think so - only the inner core is 'solid', the outer 95% is molten or 'plastic' like.

Greenland's ice cap is up to 3km thick and Antarctica's up to 5km - there's 50 million cubic kilometres of ice there, mostly on land. The Arctic ice cap is only a few metres thick so only about 25000 cubic kilometres.

1. You mentioned core, not outer core. the core is the center, which would be the inner core. yes the outer core is "plastic", but that symantics.

2. Antartica as a land mass is also depressed by the mere weight of the ice on it, which adds to the displacement of water.

Exhibit A

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: All I'm saying is that phenotypic variation through genetic recombination is far more common than a mutation that confers a survival advantage.

Exhibit B

BIGINOIL wrote: Why don't you all fuck off and write your essays on a fucking retard hippy site and let us lot get on with chatting one another up and talking about getting pissed?

Has there ever been a more lucid example of Bernard's observation: "New Order fans are either spotty students or football hooligans"?

:\pimp3:

mike powell wrote: not a bad thread this,well from what i could gleen from it. must admit im with the doc on this,the universe(our planet included) does its own thing,and if you want to be along for the ride its gonna be a bumpy one. now see that global warming? imagine it as the school yard bully (try it),you know, the one everyone was scared of at school,and the very same one that we are all being stealth taxed on. now most school bullies have a sidekick,usually a little cunt that would stir up trouble and hide behind the bully. ENTER THE THREAD, "E.M.DEGREDATION". well we are talking doom n gloom so lets chuck this little swine in n all eh. the boffins that have been studying the earths em field have noticed a distinct drop over the last 50 yrs orr so in the fields strength. this field helps to protect good ol earth from harmfull solar radiation ect. so basically if it packs up we are fucked. its currently being summised that our own use of electricity on the planet itself is somehow having an effect on our sheild so to speak. some scientists belive that something similar had happened to mars loooooooong ago , hence most of its atmosphere has been blown away,but as yet there is no solid evidence that mars even had an em feild similar to earths ect. so there you go,if global warming dont get yer the solar radiation will. so if i could give you one piece of advice for the future SUNSCREEN would be it.

Well, the Earth can shut the fuck up on that one, FFS, it's an impossible thing anyway....a self exciting dynamo.

But, surely this is just related to the poles being about to flip back round? if you check the records at the mid atlantic ridges, they show that we are SERIOUSLY overdue a pole flip....and before the magnetic field can reverse, it must fade.

I refuse point black to accept the a few megawatts of radio transmissions and a few gigwatts of power cables can even be measured through the electromagnetic battering we get from Sol day in and day out.

Still, the planet has runn with shields down in the past, and we're still here.....and the chicks will love it, they can lie around and get their skin ruined all day every day...well in fact they'll get a nice "tan"[1] in about 4 seconds flat

[1]OK, so it will be a slightly different kinds of radiation burn to the one they usually pay to get, but hey, they'll still turn reddish brown.

depthcharge wrote: Exhibit A

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: All I'm saying is that phenotypic variation through genetic recombination is far more common than a mutation that confers a survival advantage.

Exhibit B

BIGINOIL wrote: Why don't you all fuck off and write your essays on a fucking retard hippy site and let us lot get on with chatting one another up and talking about getting pissed?

Has there ever been a more lucid example of Bernard's observation: "New Order fans are either spotty students or football hooligans"?

:\pimp3:

Minx wrote:

depthcharge wrote: Exhibit A

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: All I'm saying is that phenotypic variation through genetic recombination is far more common than a mutation that confers a survival advantage.

Exhibit B

BIGINOIL wrote: Why don't you all fuck off and write your essays on a fucking retard hippy site and let us lot get on with chatting one another up and talking about getting pissed?

Has there ever been a more lucid example of Bernard's observation: "New Order fans are either spotty students or football hooligans"?

:\pimp3:

commie a spotty student.

A potty deludent more blummin likely.

Not to mention a Cad and a fuckin Bounder!

Genetically advantaged REDCARBIGCOCKS indeed.

Get ta fuck.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Oh dear. I knew I shouldn't have changed the example from cocks to beaks.

You've noticed I have a big nose aswell

Doctor? wrote:

BIGINOIL wrote: Why don't you all fuck off and write your essays on a fucking retard hippy site and let us lot get on with chatting one another up and talking about getting pissed?

Just a thought.

Being a pain in the ass is what i do best, cope with it.

Great self-awareness Steve.Coping

depthcharge wrote: Exhibit A

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: All I'm saying is that phenotypic variation through genetic recombination is far more common than a mutation that confers a survival advantage.

Exhibit B

BIGINOIL wrote: Why don't you all fuck off and write your essays on a fucking retard hippy site and let us lot get on with chatting one another up and talking about getting pissed?

Has there ever been a more lucid example of Bernard's observation: "New Order fans are either spotty students or football hooligans"?

:\pimp3:

POST of this YEAR so far.

depthcharge wrote: Exhibit A

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: All I'm saying is that phenotypic variation through genetic recombination is far more common than a mutation that confers a survival advantage.

Exhibit B

BIGINOIL wrote: Why don't you all fuck off and write your essays on a fucking retard hippy site and let us lot get on with chatting one another up and talking about getting pissed?

Has there ever been a more lucid example of Bernard's observation: "New Order fans are either spotty students or football hooligans"?

:\pimp3: