FOX: Collapse of Chicago Climate Exchange Means a Strategy Shift on Global Warming Curbs - Polidicks

[QUOTE=marlkarxv2;26006285]No, I'm not. I'm not saying anything except that science is optional to humanity. I'm not saying it doesn't make us better, or so.[/QUOTE] It sure sounded like you were. Science doesn't make us better? [quote=http://undsci.berkeley.edu/images/us101/whathassciencecollage.jpg] It does Plenty. If you think science doesn't matter much to you, think again. Science affects us all, every day of the year, from the moment we wake up, all day long, and through the night. Your digital alarm clock, the weather report, the asphalt you drive on, the bus you ride in, your decision to eat a baked potato instead of fries, your cell phone, the antibiotics that treat your sore throat, the clean water that comes from your faucet, and the light that you turn off at the end of the day have all been brought to you courtesy of science. The modern world would not be modern at all without the understandings and technology enabled by science. [img]http://undsci.berkeley.edu/images/us101/whathassciencecollage.jpg[/img] To make it clear how deeply science is interwoven with our lives, just try imagining a day without scientific progress. Just for starters, without modern science, there would be: No way to use electricity. From Ben Franklin's studies of static and lightning in the 1700s, to Alessandro Volta's first battery, to the key discovery of the relationship between electricity and magnetism, science has steadily built up our understanding of electricity, which today carries our voices over telephone lines, brings entertainment to our televisions, and keeps the lights on. [img]http://undsci.berkeley.edu/images/us101/powerlines.jpg/[/img] ...[/quote] More here: [url]http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whathassciencedone_01[/url]

[QUOTE=R3mix;26006364] Science doesn't make us better? [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=marlkarxv2;26006285] [b] I'm not[/b] saying it doesn't make us better, or so.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=marlkarxv2;26006406]I'm not saying it doesn't make us better, or so.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying you didn't say you're not saying it doesn't make us better, I'm just showing you science rules our society. If it weren't for science this so called " standard of living " wouldn't exist.

[QUOTE=R3mix;26006450] If it weren't for science this so called " standard of living " wouldn't exist.[/QUOTE] Of course, and that's completed unrelated to my point. I said science is [b]optional[/b], and that's it. You're way too off-topic. Without science we would be hitting things with sticks to get food, then dying of diseases. It doesn't matter - that's still living. As long as you can reproduce and survive long enough to reproduce, that's all that matters in the end.

[QUOTE=marlkarxv2;26006466]Of course, and that's completed unrelated to my point. I said science is [b]optional[/b], and that's it.[/QUOTE] You say that now but, if you lived in the society where it didn't exist... You wouldn't want to live there and I'm 100% sure of it.

[QUOTE=R3mix;26006480]You say that now but, if you lived in the society where it didn't exist... You wouldn't want to live there and I'm 100% sure of it.[/QUOTE] Of course I would, I never said a scienceless world would be better.

[QUOTE=marlkarxv2;26006501]Of course I would, I never said a scienceless world would be better.[/QUOTE] Then why even consider it? :fuckoff:

[QUOTE=TH89;26004822]Well, people with an education, for one Failing that, people with empathy[/QUOTE] I lack both, I'm going to hell.

[QUOTE=R3mix;26006523]Then why even consider it? :fuckoff:[/QUOTE] Because imasillypig said that science was more important.

[QUOTE=marlkarxv2;26006531]Because imasillypig said that science was more important.[/QUOTE] It is, demonstrating the toll it has on today's society.

So modern living is more important than actually living? Gosh, this is a ridiculously stupid argument.

[QUOTE=marlkarxv2;26006559]So modern living is more important than actually living? Gosh, this is a ridiculously stupid argument.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;26005608]smartest thing i heard you say. if you look through history you see that the biggest difference between us now and a 1000nd year ago was technology, which is why i say it should be what we should be focusing on[/QUOTE] He said technology ( which implies science as well ) is what we should be focusing on. Considering the toll science has on us today and technology as well, if we don't focus on it, then it will have a toll on our living styles. Hence, global warming, over population ( to a certain extent ), disease, unemployment ( to a certain extent ), etc.

[QUOTE=R3mix;26006580]He said technology ( which implies science as well ) is what we should be focusing on. Considering the toll science has on us today and technology as well, if we don't focus on it, then it will have a toll on our living styles. Hence, global warming, over population, disease, unemployment, etc.[/QUOTE] I know, but I'm saying that it's entirely possible for us to survive without focusing on it. Take away our clothes, computers, houses, and everything, people will survive - even if life will become extremely shitty.

[QUOTE=marlkarxv2;26006596]I know, but I'm saying that it's entirely possible for us to survive without focusing on it. Take away our clothes, computers, houses, and everything, people will survive - even if life will become extremely shitty.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=marlkarxv2;26006501]Of course I would, I never said a scienceless world would be better.[/QUOTE] It's entirely possible for us to survive without focusing on it, yet you wouldn't want to live in it. Then I ask you once again, why EVEN BOTHER MENTIONING IT!? Now you're just going in circles. :fuckoff: If we were to focus on science this wouldn't be happening. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1025564-Climate-Change-in-the-Antarctic-Massacring-Penguins[/url]

[QUOTE=R3mix;26006620]It's entirely possible for us to survive without focusing on it, yet you wouldn't want to live in it. [/QUOTE] And that's my point. The only reason we're still on this topic is because you replied. Way to go.

[QUOTE=marlkarxv2;26006631]And that's my point. The only reason we're still on this topic is because you replied. Way to go.[/QUOTE] Then you brought up an invalid and completely null-n-void point. Way to go champ.

[QUOTE=R3mix;26006638]Then you brought up an invalid and completely null-n-void point. Way to go champ.[/QUOTE] And what did I say that was invalid?

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;26005199]seriously, though, I don't know why there's wars when money could be put into research for fusion reactors. Its going to need a fuck of a lot of money to come to fruition, but the money put into iraq and afghanistan by America alone could have easily funded it.[/QUOTE] Because the United states has become obsessed with building and advancing millitary technology in a way that probably no other nation in history has. The millitary doesn't even want half of the stuff that gets built for it, but the thing is that it's not getting built to help win wars, it's getting built so that people have jobs. The US government doesn't want to invest in things they aren't already very good at making, and the things that America is best at making right now is weapons. Even if it were peacetime, the government would likely devote an enormous amount of money to developing new weapons.

Actually social security is number one. $3.55 trillion budget fyi. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg[/IMG]

whats with Reaver1991 spamming the boxes, at least read what someone has to say before you rate [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] The reason why we are in a war now is because people are not using science. its sad really we take the technology from science but yet never learn the lessons it wishes to teach us.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;26006989]whats with Reaver1991 spamming the boxes, at least read what someone has to say before you rate[/QUOTE] I honestly don't even know, he's just rating all my posts with boxes.

[QUOTE=Warhol;25966174][img_thumb]http://forums.accuweather.com/uploads/post-1182-1223841254.gif[/img_thumb] oh, totally natural.[/QUOTE] Wow, the world is producing exponentially more CO2 now that it has machinery to produce it. What a shock. That graph, though, tells me nothing about global warming.

[QUOTE=tomahawk2;26007479]Wow, the world is producing exponentially more CO2 now that it has machinery to produce it. What a shock. That graph, though, tells me nothing about global warming.[/QUOTE] are you really trying to say co2 doesnt have an effect on the world?

Let's use geothermal power then, how about that? Maybe putting the earth's internal heat to use. It's like nuclear powerplants but instead the Earth produces the fuel rods.

This whole discussion of global warming seems very Malthusian to me. When it becomes enough of a problem future generations will more efficiently deal with it... just like every other time in history.

[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;26008521]Let's use geothermal power then, how about that? Maybe putting the earth's internal heat to use. It's like nuclear powerplants but instead the Earth produces the fuel rods.[/QUOTE] Geothermal, just like solar, is painfully inneficient and costs more to set up than it would make by using it. Therefore, no private companies will utilize it until it is cheaper and/or more profitable to use.

[QUOTE=Ridge;26009223]Geothermal, just like solar, is painfully inneficient and costs more to set up than it would make by using it. Therefore, no private companies will utilize it until it is cheaper and/or more profitable to use.[/QUOTE] look up Iceland and then come back to me

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;26009532]look up Iceland and then come back to me[/QUOTE] Iceland has 318,000 people avergaging less than 4 per square mile to power. The city of Denver, Colorado has twice as many people than that, averaging nearly 4 THOUSAND per square mile. Iceland also has a lot of volcanoes, which means lots of open air pits of hot, and plenty of otherwise unpopulated area to build on. In layman's terms, it is NOT a viable power source to any population centre bigger than a village.

so you looked it up. your statement about it costing more then it saves is false though because once its build it makes good amounts of energy. its good to the point that schools are starting to use it for power

[QUOTE=Warhol;25993916] And nuclear power is A: filthy and B: expensive, time consuming and not reliable in the future. [/QUOTE] It's not filthy at all. Compared to using coal and oil to create energy for use, it is extremely clean. What do you even mean by time consuming? Doesn't make sense. Very getting better and better at not only making nuclear energy more efficient, but also more safe. The only problem is the radioactive waste, but compared to global climate change that isn't that big of a problem. [editline]12th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;25995912]It boggles my mind that some people still don't believe in climate change/man-made climate change. A future society will laugh at them.[/QUOTE] What future society?