oh there is such a difference in book smarts and common sense...oh man

9/23/2005 11:24:55 AM

Quote :

"However--of course adding thousands of refugeespollution to a dense city would increase the crime rateglobal warming. I'm wondering why this pearl of wisdom was thread worthy."

um, no... the song's the same.

Who would argue that increasing a population doesn't increase crime? We're arguing against his shitty facts and implied racism.

Ya'll, on the other hand, refuse to believe humans have any role in global warming. So it's actually your song that changes.



[Edited on September 23, 2005 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2005 11:29:30 AM

Quote :

"Ya'll, on the other hand, refuse to believe humans have any role in global warming."

Ya'll on the other hand, refuse to believe global warming might not exist

9/23/2005 11:32:03 AM

^ are you arguing that global warming doesn't exist? or that it isn't caused by humans?

9/23/2005 11:38:17 AM

neither...im arguing that it may or may not exist...im arguing that you cant definitely say it does exist and you cant definitely say it doesnt exist...whats so hard to understand about that...theres no overwhelming evidence that it exists or doesnt exist

9/23/2005 11:46:07 AM

Quote :

"im arguing that it may or may not exist"

AHHAHA

that's a bold argument

fucking brilliant

[Edited on September 23, 2005 at 11:58 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2005 11:56:38 AM

except for measurements of the temperture.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

What you're thinking of as being unprovable isn't global warming itself, it's the cause of global warming.

9/23/2005 11:57:04 AM

if bush said it exists on the other hand...

9/23/2005 12:00:58 PM

WOW IT CERTAINLY APPEARS GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS



WOW IT CERTAINLY APPEARS ITS NATURAL CYCLES AND NOT GLOBAL WARMING

Quote :

"that's a bold argument fucking brilliant "

yeah cause one of them must be obviously true

9/23/2005 12:30:30 PM

^ thats some pretty good info

see, thats what you gotta do. you can't come at this shit chit chat style if you want to be taken seriously.

9/23/2005 12:47:38 PM

i dont give a fuck if you imbeciles take me seriously...most of you are idiots anyway...i know what i know and im not gonna spend countless hours each day researching webpage links that support whatever point im trying to make

9/23/2005 12:49:32 PM

thou art banished from the walls of Verona

9/23/2005 12:52:44 PM

i love you tree twista

9/23/2005 1:00:09 PM

I like him too... Moral Support to you Twista!

9/23/2005 1:30:35 PM

Quote :

"Dealing with the influx of Hurricane Katrina evacuees has been expensive — more than $1 million in police overtime alone — but hasn't caused spikes in local crime or illness, top public safety officials said Monday"

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/05/katrina/3351142

Hah.

They've got an astrodome full of people

and no increase in crime rate.

And this is an actual figure.

9/23/2005 7:24:57 PM

thank goodness for the good people standing guard, keeping them from looting the city. Only cost us $1 million.

9/24/2005 12:52:33 AM

Quote :

"WOW IT CERTAINLY APPEARS ITS NATURAL CYCLES AND NOT GLOBAL WARMING"

I think you're confused. Both of those charts prove global warming is occuring. See, natural cycles would include periods of global warming and cooling (as you can see represented by the dips and spikes in your second graph there). So it's not "either natural cycles or global warming" it's "either natural cycles or human caused global warming."


^anyways, back on topic, any significant increase in population is going to tax your police resources. I mean, 150,000 people is a lot of people. Basically, all your saying, is that without significant police presence there would be crime around the evacuee area. But that's pretty much true of any population. Hell, if RPD was so understaffed that they couldn't enforce the law, I'd be robbing a liquor store right now and then throwing a nuisance party for hookers.

9/24/2005 9:16:33 AM

Thats like within miles of my parents house. :-/

9/24/2005 11:42:58 PM

Quote :

"Both of those charts prove global warming is occuring"

Damn thats pretty impressive...you are good...I wonder why no other scientists have been able to prove that global warming is occuring...I mean wow

9/26/2005 9:00:10 AM

The scientists who oppose global warming as a human caused event usually argue that earth goes through natural cycles of cooling and heating. Thus global warming and global cooling both occur at some point and we're just in one of the warming phases. What's so hard to understand? Very few scientists would argue that the measurements showing a general warming of the earth's surface are wrong.

9/26/2005 9:26:52 AM

theres a gigantic difference in simply observing temperatures and quantifying whether they rise or fall over a period of time, and "global warming" per se, which implies a non-natural anthropomorphic process

9/26/2005 9:29:21 AM

no, there are two meanings of global warming. One is just simply rises in global temperature averages. The other is a human caused rise in temp due to to green house gases. You can use the term "global warming" to refer to both of these meanings, but I made it clear in my post that I was simply referring to the rise in temp, not the cause of the rise.

9/26/2005 9:50:57 AM

well whenever you hear "global warming" on the news they are not talking about the rise in temperatures...they are talking about the assumed (by some) human-caused steady temperature increase mainly due to industrialized co2 emissions

theres a reason some scientists dont believe in global warming...because they dont define it as regular temperature increases...any scientist knows that avg temps have risen overall in the last 100 years

just to clarify

9/26/2005 9:57:18 AM

Too True. So, from now on, so there is no more confusion, you cannot just say "global warming" you must use either "human induced global warming" or "mother nature induced global warming."

9/26/2005 12:52:16 PM

the term "global warming" can confuse people...but yes, the "global warming" that scientists are split on refers to whether or not the last century's rise in average temperature is due to humans...the scientists who arent convinced of global warming know the average temperature has increased but dont know the cause

9/26/2005 1:11:44 PM

I wonder if the urban effect is being included in "human induced global warming"? Because all these cities are doing a great job of generating heat which then gets distributed around the whole of the planet. So, logically, a city the size of Raleigh should have a measurable impact on the average temperature in Cary, probably even as far away as Fayetteville. When you add all the cities together the world over, I wonder if it alone could account for a percentage of the past centuries increase?

9/26/2005 4:44:18 PM

well i think any global growth in population will add some heat but most of the scientific discussion is in regards to emission of CO2, whether it be from factories, auto exhaust, other machinery, etc

9/26/2005 5:35:15 PM