Jesus returns!

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Jesus returns!; wearing a skull and crossbones belt
Topic Started: Oct 12 2009, 05:32 AM (832 Views)
Q	Oct 14 2009, 04:54 AM Post #26
A Higher Evolution Posts: 525 Group: Members Member #12 Joined: 01/13/08	Headspin Oct 12 2009, 05:32 AM http://www.ukcolumn.org/2009/10/12/david-de-rothschild-jesus/ I seriously wonder if these bottles are genuinely "used" or if they're just factory over-runs.



Headspin	Oct 14 2009, 11:24 AM Post #27
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Q Oct 14 2009, 04:54 AM Headspin Oct 12 2009, 05:32 AM http://www.ukcolumn.org/2009/10/12/david-de-rothschild-jesus/ I seriously wonder if these bottles are genuinely "used" or if they're just factory over-runs. good point. he always wears a plastic glove on his left hand (visible in the picture too). Perhaps he has a phobia against germs in which case I can't imagine why he'd want to come into contact with bottles slurped by dirty peasant mouths. perhaps they were uniquely manufactured from only the purest of oil supplies especially for the photo.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


skunkrider	Oct 14 2009, 01:21 PM Post #28
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08	headspin, thank you for answering my question?
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08


Headspin	Oct 14 2009, 02:19 PM Post #29
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	hiphopopotamus Oct 13 2009, 08:50 PM Once again, try getting information from nonpartisan sources or a peer reviewed journal. Is carbon dioxide solubility in water proportional, or inversely proportional to the water temperature? ...or are you happy just to respond with sophistry?
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	Oct 14 2009, 02:37 PM Post #30
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	skunkrider Oct 14 2009, 02:51 AM headspin, please show to me how and where plastics can be recycled. 'recycling' is like the 9/11 OCT, and you bought completely into it. why are litter mountains growing if we have the technical capabilities to recycle plastics? September 16, 2009: "The company, Envion, is expected to cut the ribbon on Wednesday morning on a $5 million plant that it says will annually convert 6,000 tons of plastic into nearly a million barrels of something resembling oil. The product can be blended with other components and sold as gasoline or diesel" http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/a-new-way-to-turn-plastic-into-fuel/ I don't know the feasability of the above, but its unlikely that non-governmental money would invest $5 million on a plant that doesn't work. I recall people said the same thing about tyre mountains some years ago, but uses have been found for old tyres in new materials and energy sources.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


hiphopopotamus	Oct 14 2009, 02:44 PM Post #31
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08	Domenick DiMaggio Oct 13 2009, 11:42 PM hiphopopotamus Oct 13 2009, 08:50 PM Once again, try getting information from nonpartisan sources or a peer reviewed journal. who's your nonpartisan sources? # Lethal Effects of Experimental Warming Approximating a Future Climate Scenario on Southern African Quartz-Field Succulents: A Pilot Study # Author(s): Charles F. Musil, Ute Schmiedel and Guy F. Midgley # Source: New Phytologist, Vol. 165, No. 2 (Feb., 2005), pp. 539-547 • After 4-months summer treatment, the specialized-dwarf and shrubby succulents displayed between 2.1 and 4.9 times greater plant and canopy mortalities in the open-top chambers than in the control plots. Those surviving in cooler ventilated areas and shaded refuges in the chambers had lower starch concentrations and water contents; the shrubby succulents also exhibited diminished chlorophyll concentrations. • It is concluded that current thermal regimes are likely to be closely proximate to tolerable extremes for many endemic succulents in the region, and that anthropogenic warming could significantly exceed their thermal thresholds. # A Meta-Analysis of the Response of Soil Respiration, Net Nitrogen Mineralization, and Aboveground Plant Growth to Experimental Ecosystem Warming # Author(s): L. E. Rustad, J. L. Campbell, G. M. Marion, R. J. Norby, M. J. Mitchell, A. E. Hartley, J. H. C. Cornelissen, J. Gurevitch and Gcte-News # Source: Oecologia, Vol. 126, No. 4 (2001), pp. 543-562 -Climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions is predicted to raise the mean global temperature by 1.0-3.5°C in the next 50-100 years. The direct and indirect effects of this potential increase in temperature on terrestrial ecosystems and ecosystem processes are likely to be complex and highly varied in time and space. # Global Temperature Change # Author(s): James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Ken Lo, David W. Lea and Martin Medina-Elizade # Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 103, No. 39 (Sep. 26, 2006), pp. 14288-14293 Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West-East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute "dangerous" climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species. Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate. 1 This statement concentrates on climate change associated with global warming. We use the UNFCCC definition of climate change, which is ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. 2 IPCC (2001). Third Assessment Report. We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Academia Brasiliera de Ciências Brazil Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academié des Sciences France Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei Italy Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society England National Academy of Sciences United States
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08


Headspin	Oct 14 2009, 03:04 PM Post #32
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	that paper doesn't prove man made global warming, it assumes it. there are plenty of scientists that do not accept the IPCC assement, so its not enough just to pluck a group of scientists that accept the assessment. http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


hiphopopotamus	Oct 14 2009, 04:23 PM Post #33
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08	Headspin Oct 14 2009, 03:04 PM that paper doesn't prove man made global warming, it assumes it. there are plenty of scientists that do not accept the IPCC assement, so its not enough just to pluck a group of scientists that accept the assessment. http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462 I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink. Of course there are dissenting opinions, there always are. But the scientific academies of 11 very different (and major) nations agree that the data shows manmade climate change is real. Not a bunch of random people with unverifiable degrees, but the leaders of their respective fields.
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08


Headspin	Oct 14 2009, 04:32 PM Post #34
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	appeal to authority is not a scientific argument, its a religious argument.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Q	Oct 15 2009, 04:14 PM Post #35
A Higher Evolution Posts: 525 Group: Members Member #12 Joined: 01/13/08	Headspin Oct 14 2009, 02:37 PM skunkrider Oct 14 2009, 02:51 AM headspin, please show to me how and where plastics can be recycled. 'recycling' is like the 9/11 OCT, and you bought completely into it. why are litter mountains growing if we have the technical capabilities to recycle plastics? September 16, 2009: "The company, Envion, is expected to cut the ribbon on Wednesday morning on a $5 million plant that it says will annually convert 6,000 tons of plastic into nearly a million barrels of something resembling oil. The product can be blended with other components and sold as gasoline or diesel" http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/a-new-way-to-turn-plastic-into-fuel/ I don't know the feasability of the above, but its unlikely that non-governmental money would invest $5 million on a plant that doesn't work. I recall people said the same thing about tyre mountains some years ago, but uses have been found for old tyres in new materials and energy sources. There is work being done on this same type of "technology" in Australia. As most plastics are oil-based, converting them back into combustible fuel isn't exactly solving the problem, is it?



noeffects	Oct 15 2009, 04:56 PM Post #36
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	but is RedShield's plastic glove made from recycled material ?
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


Headspin	Oct 15 2009, 05:39 PM Post #37
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Q Oct 15 2009, 04:14 PM There is work being done on this same type of "technology" in Australia. As most plastics are oil-based, converting them back into combustible fuel isn't exactly solving the problem, is it? yes it solves the problem as defined by skunk, which was that plastic could not be recycled. what do you define the "problem" as?
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


hiphopopotamus	Oct 15 2009, 07:57 PM Post #38
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08	Headspin Oct 14 2009, 04:32 PM appeal to authority is not a scientific argument, its a religious argument. Trusting a bunch of random strangers with unverifiable degrees rather than some of the most well education and respected scientific minds is an appeal to absurdity.
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08


Headspin	Oct 16 2009, 01:33 AM Post #39
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	hiphopopotamus Oct 15 2009, 07:57 PM Headspin Oct 14 2009, 04:32 PM appeal to authority is not a scientific argument, its a religious argument. Trusting a bunch of random strangers with unverifiable degrees rather than some of the most well education and respected scientific minds is an appeal to absurdity. viewing the world as a series of dualistic binary choices is an appeal to idiocy.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


skunkrider	Oct 16 2009, 01:37 PM Post #40
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08	Headspin Oct 16 2009, 01:33 AM hiphopopotamus Oct 15 2009, 07:57 PM Headspin Oct 14 2009, 04:32 PM appeal to authority is not a scientific argument, its a religious argument. Trusting a bunch of random strangers with unverifiable degrees rather than some of the most well education and respected scientific minds is an appeal to absurdity. viewing the world as a series of dualistic binary choices is an appeal to idiocy. have you ever had chemistry lessons in school? (no offense) do you know what endothermic and exothermic reactions are and what the difference is and which applies to plastics?
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08


Q	Oct 24 2009, 09:11 AM Post #41
A Higher Evolution Posts: 525 Group: Members Member #12 Joined: 01/13/08	Headspin Oct 15 2009, 05:39 PM Q Oct 15 2009, 04:14 PM There is work being done on this same type of "technology" in Australia. As most plastics are oil-based, converting them back into combustible fuel isn't exactly solving the problem, is it? yes it solves the problem as defined by skunk, which was that plastic could not be recycled. what do you define the "problem" as? There is a finite amount of hydrocarbon material available. If it were all used as plastic and recycled, as needed there would be no problem, as there would be plenty for all, but burning it for fuel is a one-way non-renewable process.



skunkrider	Oct 24 2009, 11:05 AM Post #42
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08	Q Oct 24 2009, 09:11 AM Headspin Oct 15 2009, 05:39 PM Q Oct 15 2009, 04:14 PM There is work being done on this same type of "technology" in Australia. As most plastics are oil-based, converting them back into combustible fuel isn't exactly solving the problem, is it? yes it solves the problem as defined by skunk, which was that plastic could not be recycled. what do you define the "problem" as? There is a finite amount of hydrocarbon material available. If it were all used as plastic and recycled, as needed there would be no problem, as there would be plenty for all, but burning it for fuel is a one-way non-renewable process. that's just the problem: even if recycling were nearly as efficient or doable as such companies claim, it's still not a hundred percent. it's not a perpetuum mobile; in the linear system called our planet we will run out of resources sooner or later. btw., headspin, is this your way of dealing with topics you cannot constructively reply to or even "win"? you claim the plastics problem to be solved because some company says they have revolutionary technology, and when I ask you a question for a 13-year old pupil, I hear nothing back. please reply? Edited by skunkrider, Oct 24 2009, 11:06 AM.
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08


tower	Oct 25 2009, 03:57 AM Post #43
Posts: 233 Group: Members Member #121 Joined: 01/18/08	Quote: Venus is over 700 degrees fahrenheit, around the same temperature the self-cleaning function new ovens heat up to. Though venus is closer to the sun, its only a marginal difference and doesn't account for the ~600 degree difference. You know what does? Green house gasses like CO2. Ah, the Venus argument again. Venus' atmosphere is made 96.5% out of carbon dioxide. Earth's atmosphere is 0.038% carbon dioxide. To compare those two and reach the conclusion that CO2 is as dangerous as Rothschild and the rest would like you to believe is analogous to saying that molasses is deadly because you can drown in it. Quote: and to compare saturn's and jupiter's moons to our planet is so ludicrous, I want to smack Alex Jones every time I read it again You're right, it's as ludicrous as comparing Earth and Venus. Quote: If mankind really wanted, we could renaturalize all the lost forest grounds, we could produce abundant regenerative energies everywhere, with which to power cars, trucks, motorbikes, planes, ships, factories, everything. Could you cite me an example of a renewable, efficient energy source capable for powering a car at any time of the day. Also, if we wanted, we could end all wars and poverty - but I'm sure you realize that this isn't possible as of now.
Posts: 233 Group: Members Member #121 Joined: 01/18/08


Headspin	Oct 25 2009, 05:20 PM Post #44
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	skunkrider Oct 24 2009, 11:05 AM Q Oct 24 2009, 09:11 AM Headspin Oct 15 2009, 05:39 PM Q Oct 15 2009, 04:14 PM There is work being done on this same type of "technology" in Australia. As most plastics are oil-based, converting them back into combustible fuel isn't exactly solving the problem, is it? yes it solves the problem as defined by skunk, which was that plastic could not be recycled. what do you define the "problem" as? There is a finite amount of hydrocarbon material available. If it were all used as plastic and recycled, as needed there would be no problem, as there would be plenty for all, but burning it for fuel is a one-way non-renewable process. that's just the problem: even if recycling were nearly as efficient or doable as such companies claim, it's still not a hundred percent. it's not a perpetuum mobile; in the linear system called our planet we will run out of resources sooner or later. btw., headspin, is this your way of dealing with topics you cannot constructively reply to or even "win"? you claim the plastics problem to be solved because some company says they have revolutionary technology, and when I ask you a question for a 13-year old pupil, I hear nothing back. please reply? you defined the original problem as a technical problem with: "<plastics are> a horror for the environment and will come back to haunt us." and "plastics are not degradable. they'll accumulate, until they're wash up on our shores and we'll suffocate in garbage." I've pointed out that a company is claiming they are going to annually recycle 6,000 tons of plastic into a million barrels of fuel oil. You now seem to be redefining the problem as an energy problem, but there is an energy gain from the fuel oil product. any recycling whether its glass or plastic will require an input of energy. If you are saying the claims of the company are not feasable then state why, its not down to me to answer questions in order to accept your point of view. carbon emissions reduction is a solution looking for a problem.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	Nov 6 2009, 09:18 AM Post #45
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Full 90 minute Lord Monckton presentation illustrating the lies promoting man made global warming and implication for national sovereignty. Accompanying slides and data for the presentation not visible in the video. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	Nov 22 2009, 09:14 AM Post #46
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	story of the decade? evidence of scientific fraud and conspiracy to promote CAGW. or clever poison pill disinfo? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ Hadley files: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206 Edited by Headspin, Nov 22 2009, 09:19 AM.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Duffman1013	Dec 5 2009, 12:10 AM Post #47
Posts: 56 Group: Members Member #1,269 Joined: 08/06/09	tower Oct 25 2009, 03:57 AM Could you cite me an example of a renewable, efficient energy source capable for powering a car at any time of the day. Here ya go. Ok, I know it's not a car, but work with me on this... And soylent green is people. Edited by Duffman1013, Dec 5 2009, 12:12 AM.
Posts: 56 Group: Members Member #1,269 Joined: 08/06/09


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2