News:

Nitpicky? Hell yes.

Main Menu

NASA Knows

Started by The Magic Pudding., March 30, 2023, 02:25:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Magic Pudding.

QuoteThe Nationals candidate for Port Macquarie, local mayor Peta Pinson, has told a public meeting that her scepticism towards climate science has "solidified" since seeing a document saying that NASA had admitted that global warming was caused by changes in the Earth's orbit.

Well look at that, NASA knows, our esteemed mayor knows, so how-come no one around here mentioned this?
Global warming is caused by Earth's orbit, she has seen a DOCUMENT! :o
Praise the lord she's on the job, no one besides her and NASA seem to be, and NASA is ever at risk of lefty meddling.

She has also done "research" into the evils of fluoride, though it doesn't seem she has been successful getting it out of our water, so far.

Tragically Peta failed to get voted into state government, some leftist media conspiracy involved there I think. >:(

No one

Silly fools, Earth doesn't even exist.

Dark Lightning

Document from what source? The Flat Earth Society? What a tool.

Tank

If you didn't laugh you'd cry.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

The Magic Pudding.


MarcusA

NASA knows nothing, that's how clever they are.
This user has been banned for spamming the forum.

Recusant

I've seen ridiculous dross like this elsewhere. Some clod happens across a mention of Milankovitch cycles, or more usually is fed it by a duplicitous boob and suddenly science is on their side!!
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Asmodean

My beef with the whole conversation is that there is always some talk about the causes of the changing climate and how to "un-change" it (as if that was somehow the default position, which it is not) but almost never any about whether and why I should help the changes, hinder them or do nothing.

One would think that that was kind-of important to agree on - more so, even, than whose "fault" it is.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Ecurb Noselrub

The best thing we could do for the environment, individually and corporately, is to go extinct. We won't do that voluntarily (for the most part), so probably nature will do it for us ... sooner or later.

billy rubin

even if we are notcausing global warming, it is clearly happening

we need to be doing stuff


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Asmodean

#10
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 06, 2023, 01:12:49 AMThe best thing we could do for the environment, individually and corporately, is to go extinct.
Which environment?

If you are talking about stuff like the preservation of biodiversity, sure, but that would probably turn out worse for a monocultuire dominated environment, would it not? Disappear a city, and what will rats and pidgeons do? Disappear a farm, and what will the cattle do?

My point is; "saving" one kind of environment may very well turn out to be detrimental to another. Personally, I do not subscribe to "natural automatically equals good/better," and from this position, it's a complex problem.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

MarcusA

NASA knows sweet-fuck-all about climate change, but you will when it hammers you.
This user has been banned for spamming the forum.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Asmodean on July 06, 2023, 08:47:06 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 06, 2023, 01:12:49 AMThe best thing we could do for the environment, individually and corporately, is to go extinct.
Which environment?

If you are talking about stuff like the preservation of biodiversity, sure, but that would probably turn out worse for a monocultuire dominated environment, would it not? Disappear a city, and what will rats and pidgeons do? Disappear a farm, and what will the cattle do?

My point is; "saving" one kind of environment may very well turn out to be detrimental to another. Personally, I do not subscribe to "natural automatically equals good/better," and from this position, it's a complex problem.

OK, point taken. Let me clarify: our non-existence would be beneficial for most other species, plant and animal. We pollute the air, the seas, the ground. We kill rainforests and wipe out millions of animals. Nothing we do is overall beneficial for the earth. We are a virus. What we do may be good for us in the short-term, but we are ultimately going to kill ourselves, so we are not even really benefitting our own species, as far as its long-term survival is concerned. Our extinction would probably be welcomed, if anything else had real awareness of it.

billy rubin

seems like the killer whales are figuring it out


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Anne D.

We must have complete agreement on how precisely to rearrange the deck chairs before we do anything about the sinking of the ship we're on. Hmmm.