- This topic has 46 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I know this thread will likely become a flame war, but I just had post this. When this originally aired, I had the TV going in the background, but wasn’t really paying attention. At 0:18, Bill O’Reilly said something so surprising, that I turned to face the screen and starting paying attention.
Bill Nye definitely made his point well, too bad Joe’s gnarly *edited* mouth was distracting me from his points.
He was on Rachel Maddow a month ago talking about global warming, too.
Was that Joetard just a rude *edited* because he looks like that, or because he was nervous as *edited* trying to debate with Bill Nye the Science Guy.
protip: the guy barking and yelling usually isn’t right.
Joe is right about one thing, they are aruging over a 1 to 2 degree variation in average temperature. The difference is these types of changes normally take thousands of years to occur but now it may happen in 50? That may not be devestating, but it can’t be good can it? I personally think we shouldn’t make conclusions until we have all the data, which in this case would take hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
meh I personally don’t have much faith in the global warming.. but I did think it was funny that the camera man wouldn’t even zoom in on Bill Nye’s little post cards when Joe had nice graphics that encompassed the whole screen. I’m sure carbon dioxide affects the global temperature in some way, but I doubt it’s doing it enough to make a really big difference…
Oxygen naturally dissipates. Maybe we just need more trees.
No surprise they wouldnt zoom in on Bill’s Cards. Fox doesnt really support his theory. Both arguments are strong. I’m torn on the issue TBH
Imagine siting at your computer, when you hear the following comng from your TV:
“Here to discuss partial-birth abortion are Jack Sparrow, Princess Zelda, and Jesus Christ.”
That’s pretty much how I felt.
So a meteorologist, the guys who guess on the weather each day, and bill nye the *edited*ing science guy.
gee… what a waste of both bill’s talents.
I’m gonna say this. These television debates are so unregulated. If you have ever attend a panel or a real time debate, each person is allowed equal time to form an argument, and each person gets time for a rebuttal. This *edited* on TV really seems like a yelling match and whoever is louder and has better graphs is listened to over the other. Not saying there is a winner in this case, just that they are both losers because I feel each one had a good point to make, but could not get a word in to explain themselves without an interruption.
I would have liked to see this debate done in a 10 minute span, where each one is allowed to speak, defend, and rebuke each other in a regulated matter. O’Reilly has done that before, and it proved successful.
MajorMajorMajor said:
So a meteorologist, the guys who guess on the weather each day, and bill nye the *edited*ing science guy.
gee… what a waste of both bill’s talents.
I’m gonna say this. These television debates are so unregulated. If you have ever attend a panel or a real time debate, each person is allowed equal time to form an argument, and each person gets time for a rebuttal. This *edited* on TV really seems like a yelling match and whoever is louder and has better graphs is listened to over the other. Not saying there is a winner in this case, just that they are both losers because I feel each one had a good point to make, but could not get a word in to explain themselves without an interruption.
I would have liked to see this debate done in a 10 minute span, where each one is allowed to speak, defend, and rebuke each other in a regulated matter. O’Reilly has done that before, and it proved successful.
I’d just liked to say that Major is so *edited*ing unregulated that he should salgkejdkdfkjdkfjdk and that is all ..
DRUNK
Lemm said:
MajorMajorMajor said:
So a meteorologist, the guys who guess on the weather each day, and bill nye the *edited*ing science guy.
gee… what a waste of both bill’s talents.
I’m gonna say this. These television debates are so unregulated. If you have ever attend a panel or a real time debate, each person is allowed equal time to form an argument, and each person gets time for a rebuttal. This *edited* on TV really seems like a yelling match and whoever is louder and has better graphs is listened to over the other. Not saying there is a winner in this case, just that they are both losers because I feel each one had a good point to make, but could not get a word in to explain themselves without an interruption.
I would have liked to see this debate done in a 10 minute span, where each one is allowed to speak, defend, and rebuke each other in a regulated matter. O’Reilly has done that before, and it proved successful.
I’d just liked to say that Major is so *edited*ing unregulated that he should salgkejdkdfkjdkfjdk and that is all ..
DRUNK
needs more drunk lemm
what you talkin about willis?
notice the lower portion of the second one. Over the last 50 years, summers are getting hotter, winters are getting warmer. that said, we need at the very least, another 50 years of data before we come to any vague conlusions.
NuRayZ said:
what you talkin about willis?
notice the lower portion of the second one. Over the last 50 years, summers are getting hotter, winters are getting warmer.
And yet, if you look earlier than 1850, by using geological data, oxygen testing of compressed ice in the arctic, and the data gathered from coring trees, you see that the earth fluctuates in temperature. Your graph goes until 1850, where there was a convenient a nice cold, wet spell. Extrapolate until the 1200s and you will see that during that time the climate was much warmer then than it is now. (Think agricultural revolution) Just now there are 12th century villages in Norway and Sweden that are being uncovered that looking into their tools were primarily agricultural. THEY EVEN CULTIVATED VINES! Gasp – Only now is Sweden even able to keep a Vine alive long enough to produce a substandard wine.
My point is not that things are getting hotter right now. It’s looking more at long term data that the earth goes through fluctuation naturally. I will not speculate whether or not green house gases are effecting that or not, but my theory is that most of it is natural.
i suspect that the earth operates on cycles that could give a *edited* what we do or not, that said cutting back on emissions couldn’t really hurt. Clean coal is the most retarded thing i’ve heard, and i’ve been on xbox live
rainefardreamer said:
i suspect that the earth operates on cycles that could give a *edited* what we do or not, that said cutting back on emissions couldn’t really hurt. Clean coal is the most retarded thing i’ve heard, and i’ve been on xbox live
ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
rainefardreamer said:
Clean coal is the most retarded thing i’ve heard, and i’ve been on xbox live
If you knew the difference between our clean coal and every other countrys’ normal coal you’d ragequit the discussion after that failure of a post.
I’m from PA, we had a coal stove (anthracite) and it was the dirtiest thing imagineable and a real pain to burn (though it does burn a lot for the amount of coal used); I am not against clean coal technologies at all, but honestly we have already mined a lot of the easy to get to coal so its not a perfect solution cost-wise.
How we use coal and how they use it are entirely different. Sure they toss it in and burn it just the same but the emissions from a coal plant are significantly cleaner. If you’ve never been in a modern coal plant you really don’t know how they work.
…Then again you also don’t know just how much coal they use. It’s an insanely, ridiculously high amount. Like you see how many tons they use and you’re like “so that much per week or month” and they reply “oh no no that much per day”. This is why nuclear plants need to be cheap and easy for companies to build and take about 20 years less to get approvals for.
Fun Fact: Coal plants have a 20% variation on power output based on outside temperature. On cold days 10% less than rated, on hot days 10% more.
This is why nuclear plants need to be cheap and easy for companies to build and take about 20 years less to get approvals for.
this a million times this
a little off topic, and may have been posted before, but
SPACE CANNON!!!
basically hydrogen powered cannon, to shoot supplies into space.
Deliveries to an orbital outpost on a rocket costs around $5,000 per pound, but using a space cannon would cost just $250 per pound.
NuRayZ said:
a little off topic, and may have been posted before, but
SPACE CANNON!!!
basically hydrogen powered cannon, to shoot supplies into space.
Deliveries to an orbital outpost on a rocket costs around $5,000 per pound, but using a space cannon would cost just $250 per pound.
lol what? like shoot anything into space?
inb4 10 year olds trying to blast their younger sisters into space
MajorMajorMajor said:
Rocket Rob said:
I like donuts
I am a flaming homosexual monkey ball sucker.
inb4 ban
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.