Home | Community | Message Board

Mycohaus
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: dr0mni]
    #6092277 - 09/23/06 12:34 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

dr0mni said:
We have the technology right now to do SO MUCH good! But we are wasting it on slaughter and decadence.



But isn't this inherently a judgement call?

The environment matters to you, so to you saving it is a "good". But that's your choice.

It doesn't matter to me as much as other things do. What you call decadence, I call medical research, creative expression, and entrepreneuship.

But that's my judgement, not yours. This isn't something we're going to agree on, I'm just asking you to see the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: The denial industry [Re: Economist]
    #6092364 - 09/23/06 01:41 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Hey, that was a very thoughtful post on sharing more of your personal views on things. It really helps when people do that to understand and respect radical differences better.

I very much value this too, probably second to life itself-

Quote:

peoples dreams, visions and the hard work they are doing to achieve it.




I live to make dreams come and its the best feeling there is. See my sig :lol:

Sometimes, eco, the individual dreams of humans and what they work hard at to accomplish as individuals do come into conflict with each other. What do we do about it.

Work with this mock example and I'll run with your corporate polluted river one.

One may dream of their child one day playing in a certain river they grew up playing in. They may work hard at maintaining their childhood home they inherited and at setting themselves up financially before they feel responsible enough to start raising a family of their own there. And then, they take their child down to that river, years later, only to find, all sorts of toxic scum and dead fish in it it, because that was the side effect of someone else's working hard at making their dreams of becoming CEO of a company they are dedicated by developing more efficient production and cost cuts. The family protests and demands a clean up act.

Two dreams have collided and are in conflict.

Now what? Who's dream is more important? Power struggles usually result. I think given time, humans will become better able at seeking understanding and compromise and I really do believe we will be working in more co-operative and synchronized levels as we evolve further.

On a personal note, I have concerns greater then the environment at this time, like how children are being raised and the public education system. Where my environmental concerns are the strongest right now are with the Oceans actually.

Studying economics, you understand the trickle down effect. The natural world sustains our life and if we mess with it too much, we won't be alive to be able to make dreams come true here any more. It does have to fit somewhere in our value list if even at the bottom. If even if it doesn;t make your list at all, can you understand why it is on other peoples list and maybe even appreciate they are looking out for what sustains our life for you?

Maybe others do appreciate some of the things you value very much so as well. We are all obviously appreciating technological advancements or we wouldn;t be typing on the internet. We are all also appreciating the benefits of our capitalistic society as well as corporate innovations in the market place that allow for us to own computers and internet access. Even if they never stop to consider how much of what in their lives they use and enjoy that comes from corporate capitalism, the material drives of others, and scientific innovations they obviously do.

We all have our roles to play that keep the whole ship moving forward. I think when people get "testy", its because they are feeling the planet progressing out of balance based on their sense of balance.

There's definitely a give and take at play and some people feel that others take more then they give, based on their personal values.

Balance is key and I think all of the pushing and pulling in the world is all about our individual sense of trying to keep the balance and equilibrium as stable as possible.

Actually, if you look around it's more like shoving and Jerk yanking each other around. Maybe with more open communication and understanding it will mellow out to just gentle nudging for compromises to be made and for everyone to get what they want and we learn how to work together to create win wins for all.

That'll take time and continued maturing as a race of intelligent beings. Our future survival will depend on it.

Here's somethings I'll put forward that is of great interest or concern for many I could care less about- competitive sports, archeology, and geneology to name a few. They are all probably important in the bigger sceheme of things and perhaps I should better work to appreciate others hard work, interest and efforts in those areas. If you feel about the ecological environment the way I feel about those things, then, I can totally relate to that feeling at least. :lol:

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #6093093 - 09/23/06 12:19 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Who's dream is more important?




Simple. One dream is causing harm one isn't. Polluting a river not only potentially harms people, but it harms the local wildlife that reside there. We have no right as humans to extinguish life on this planet and if nothing can survive us then we are the worst beings to ever live here. I serious hope I am not part of such a species, I am already ashamed enough at the sheer level if ignorance and apathy, I would not prefer to add global genocide to the list.

A man can be a CEO without dumping stuff in a river, a child cannot play in toxic water. One dream harms, one dream doesn't, if your harming others to make your dreams come true then you don't deserve to dream.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #6093834 - 09/23/06 05:59 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Here's an interesting example of one environmentalist's dream causing harm. Rachel Carson, on the basis of junk science, decried DDT as the cause of eagle eggs breaking. There was such an outcry among the nitwittery that DDT was banned worldwide. Subsequently, millions of people died from malaria. Millions and millions. Then we have the idiot class screaming about geneticly engineered rice. Millions are fed that otherwise wouldn't be. But there is a screaming class nonetheless. Different dreams. Cars, computers, refrigerators, etc. all come at a cost. We are currently at such an astonishing level of effectiveness as a species that it may well be unparalleled in the entire universe. We have no evidence to the contrary. There is no reason to believe that we cannot achieve whatever is necessary to continue that success. I do not support the river dumping absolute that you cite. They should be forced to clean that up. But that does not obligate me to embrace the overweening absolutism of the Greenpeace fools, either.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 11 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6094559 - 09/23/06 10:34 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Economist, I'm a all for medical research, entreprenuership, and creative expression. What I'm against is SOV's (Singularly Occupied Vehicles), Waste-Consumption economics, forced dependence on transportation industry, and the destruction of self-sufficient communities.

the current system DENIES creativity, restricts beneficial technology (like medicine, perma-culture, and Free Energy) for profits sake, and systematically suppresses environmental movements.

I'm not asking you to join Greenpeace and get run over by whaling boats. But until we can create self-sustainable, artificial ecosystem, we are dependent upon the earths ecosystems for survivial. We are only begining to glean the complex relationships between forests, weather systems, rainfall, etc, and our own activitites. If we destroy our support system then there is no hope for anyone.

That's why I said "Limited Industry" should be limited to medical, communications, free energy, and space technology, etc. These areas promote human survival and harmony.

Industries which destroy the environment and human life include Military/Defense/weapons technologies, mass production of chemicals, the oil industry, advertising and public relations firms, food additive companies, junk food companies, agri-corp, etc.

I see the other side. I see the wonderful benefits that capitalism and technology have for humanity, but you must admit to see the other side. The side which represses labor movements for profit, destroys the enviroment, and suspends all aspects of moral conduct for the sake of "the well being of the economy".

I'm not picking sides, I'm trying to take a holistic approach to all of this.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: The denial industry [Re: dr0mni]
    #6096154 - 09/24/06 04:11 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Nice way to elucidate the balance being called for by some here.

I think most don't want to see the preservation of one sides values come at the cost of the other. What they want to see is more working together to maintain a mutual appreciation of both values.

With a little compromise and co-operation, sense of responsibility, less stubborn extremism on both sides, and some forethought with better planning, we can maintain positive growth on both sides and all enjoy the fruits of both the nature made and man made.

Because some people can't do that explains why we have the extremes fighting against each other instead of working with each other to come to mutually benefical agreements, where no one has to loose anything of great value to them and everyone can win much of what they want.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: dr0mni]
    #6097478 - 09/25/06 01:36 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I guess the biggest problem I have is that I feel capitalism is far more tolerant of environmentalism than the other way around.

If you want to buy land and leave it un-developed, protect it, and allow wildlife to run its course, the capitalist camp (for the most part) won't stop you. They won't try to pass laws that forcibly develop your land, or threaten you with fines and jail terms if you leave it fallow.

However, the environmentalist camp tries to reach out and effect land they don't own. They force companies to pay fines and even threaten with jail terms, for polluting land that they own.

It doesn't bother me as much when there is a demostrable damage done to bystanders or damage done outside the private property. It does bother me when attempts are made (as they are in the case of Global Warming) to regulate companies when there isn't quanitfiable damage being done. This is especially important because CO2 isn't toxic to humans and there are severe problems with the research done on Global Warming (see my previous posts in this thread for those arguments).

Finally, I understand the point you are making Dr. Omni, but I find it very hard to believe because of a lack of empirical evidence. We have been "destroying" the ecosystem for tens of thousands of years. Most of the fossil record suggests humans hunted wooly mammoths to extinction. In Britain, wolves were hunted to extinction in the dark ages. And yet there has been no massive collapse of ecology, even on local levels. I just find it hard to accept the idea that there's going to be some massive collapse in the future, when we can't even find small-scale collapses in the past.

Even in cases of soil-nutrient shortages, there have always been easily found solutions, either natural or engineered, and it has never resulted in a general lack of habitability.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The denial industry [Re: Economist]
    #6100146 - 09/25/06 08:13 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

However, the environmentalist camp tries to reach out and effect land they don't own. They force companies to pay fines and even threaten with jail terms, for polluting land that they own.



The problem with capitalists is that you think your right to own land is sacred, when in fact, we all belong to the earth. The way you use a particular piece of land affects others. In fact, simply owning land affects others, because you use up a finite piece of the earth which you had no part in creating, nor did its original owner. You don't honestly believe that a piece of land becomes disconnected from the rest of the environment just because it's owned by someone, do you? And surely you can't believe that the smog generated on a piece of property stays within that property. We are all part of a greater being called Gaia. When any part of her is out of balance, she becomes sick, and the parts that make her up suffer along with her. She does have a strong immune system, but it can only heal so much.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 43 minutes, 18 seconds
Re: The denial industry [Re: Silversoul]
    #6100332 - 09/25/06 08:48 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

We should all roam were we please......why are there fences?


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The denial industry [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #6100576 - 09/25/06 09:38 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
We should all roam were we please......why are there fences?



Fences can create a private space, which can actually encourage neighborliness in some sense. Having a piece of land for private use is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but to think that you have a sacred right to use that piece of land any way you want is to ignore the interconnectedness of life and act as though we are superior to the earth itself.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: Silversoul]
    #6103679 - 09/26/06 02:49 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
The problem with capitalists is that you think your right to own land is sacred, when in fact, we all belong to the earth.




So the problem with my sacred belief is that it doesn't agree with your sacred belief?  :wink:

I'm not saying capitalists are definitively right, we may not be, but what we believe in is no less "right" than what you believe in.  The major difference is that the capitalist belief structure does not require you to do anything, whereas your belief structure demands quite a bit from the capitalists.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: The denial industry [Re: Economist]
    #6103886 - 09/26/06 03:30 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

How big an effect do the current CO2 levels play in the climate change we are currently undergoing? I was causality, not correlation. You can point to increasing CO2 levels and you can point to increasing temperatures, and I would agree that they seem to be, at the very least, weakly correlated over the past century.

This is just nonsense. There have been hundreds of studies showing the correlation between carbon levels in the atmosphere and temperature are statistically significant.

I want proof of causation.

Science 101: Even when the experimental variable can be controlled and manipulated, CAUSALITY IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE OR DEMONSTRATE!
If you want causality, you're never going to get it. :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #6104024 - 09/26/06 04:03 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
This is just nonsense. There have been hundreds of studies showing the correlation between carbon levels in the atmosphere and temperature are statistically significant.



Did I claim otherwise?  I definitely agree that they are correlated to a statistically significant degree, but that does not mean the one causes the other.

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
Science 101: Even when the experimental variable can be controlled and manipulated, CAUSALITY IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE OR DEMONSTRATE!
If you want causality, you're never going to get it. :lol:



You need to take some better science classes.  Here are some examples of mathematical ways to prove causation:

Use an Instrument Variable ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_variable )
Collate Data and do Panel Analysis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panel_analysis )
Even Multiple Linear Regression could be used ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_regression#Multiple_linear_regression ) IF the climatologists collected aditional data.

I'm not looking for "iron clad proof" I'm just looking for some form of mathematical evidence for causation.  I'm not asking for 100% certainty, just something more than mere correlation. 

We have TONS of climate data, why not run a multiple linear regression on a larger data set?  Why only test for correlation between CO2 and Temperature?  What if CO2, Temperature, and global SO2 are all correlated?  What would that mean?  How about the correlation between ozone content and Temperature controlled for CO2 emissions, and vice versa?  These are important tests that need to be run, but they haven't been done.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The denial industry [Re: Economist]
    #6104670 - 09/26/06 07:05 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Economist said:
The major difference is that the capitalist belief structure does not require you to do anything, whereas your belief structure demands quite a bit from the capitalists.



That's because life demands a lot of us. This is like a pilot bitching about the fact that he has to land the plane.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: The denial industry [Re: Economist]
    #6104763 - 09/26/06 07:26 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I definitely agree that they are correlated to a statistically significant degree, but that does not mean the one causes the other.

Yes. Just like the statistically significant correlation between smoking tobacco and lung cancer does not mean one causes the other. Scientists employed by the Tobacco industry were a big fan of this argument.

If you can say: "they are correlated to a statistically significant degree, but that does not mean the one causes the other" I don't know what to tell ya. :shrug: David Hume might admire your denial of causality, but it doesn't get any more precise than that.

You need to take some better science classes. Here are some examples of mathematical ways to prove causation:

Inferential statistics do not prove causation in any empiric sense. Causation is impossible to observe, it is assumed after enough coherent data has been collected. Scientists can only observe that event-A happens and event-B follows it consistently. As Richard Dawkins puts it, "Operationally we can never demonstrate that a particular observed event C caused a particular result R, although it will often be judged highly likely. What biologists in practice usually do is to establish statistically that events of class R reliably follow events of class C."

Edited by MushmanTheManic (09/26/06 07:27 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #6105006 - 09/26/06 08:24 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
Yes. Just like the statistically significant correlation between smoking tobacco and lung cancer does not mean one causes the other. Scientists employed by the Tobacco industry were a big fan of this argument.

If you can say: "they are correlated to a statistically significant degree, but that does not mean the one causes the other" I don't know what to tell ya. David Hume might admire your denial of causality, but it doesn't get any more precise than that.




Actually one of the more famous studies proving most detrimental health effects used Panel analysis to show causality. The British Doctors Survey (available here: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7455/1519 ) compared doctors of several similar groups, contrasting smokers with non-smokers in each group. They showed that even when you control for age, generation, race, location, etc. the smokers still had a greater incidence of health problems in every case.

They did not just say "there's a correlation between smokers and health problems".

Now, clearly this wouldn't work for the climatologists, so they would have to find other options. Personally I can think of no reason multiple linear regression wouldn't work for them, so long as they included other variables tracked across the past century. I also suspect finding an instrument variable may be helpful. There may even be some way to get together panel data, but I don't know for certain.

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
Inferential statistics do not prove causation in any empiric sense. Causation is impossible to observe, it is assumed after enough coherent data has been collected. Scientists can only observe that event-A happens and event-B follows it consistently. As Richard Dawkins puts it, "Operationally we can never demonstrate that a particular observed event C caused a particular result R, although it will often be judged highly likely. What biologists in practice usually do is to establish statistically that events of class R reliably follow events of class C."



I don't really know what works for biologists, and if that's all they really do, frankly I'm afraid for them.

Statistics CAN provide estimates of causality if used correctly. Will you always be right? No, of course not, but you can usually get close. That's what the entire science of econometrics is about: applying empirical evidence to economic models in order to develop economic theory. Economists also aren't the only ones who do it, as I already mentioned above, it's used in medicine, and it shows up in many physics papers (albeit in a different form than used in medicine and economics).

Perhaps some fields of biology are having a tought time with it, hence your quote, but I don't know. What I do know is that at least three sciences (Physics, Medicine, Economics) believe that correlation is not enough to draw a conclusion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: The denial industry [Re: Economist]
    #6105382 - 09/26/06 09:59 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

"...lung cancer and chronic obstructive lung disease are closely related to continued cigarette smoking and to the daily number of cigarettes smoked. For each of the other nine categories of cause of death there are more moderate, but again highly significant (each P < 0.0001), positive relations with the continuation of cigarette smoking and with the daily number smoked."

I'm wondering why they didn't included the p-value for lung cancer and chronic obstructive lung disease, but otherwise that is an awfully impressive study. (Any probability below 0.5 is considered statistically significant. Having a p-value of 0.0001 means they had a very well made study.)

I don't see anything that demonstrates causality, although it comes extremely close. If this study did prove a causal connection, the p-value would be zero, which is impossible.

If you think I'm just pulling this p-value nonsense out of my ass (I hope you're not), the book, Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research by Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba states, "...no matter how perfect the research design, no matter how much data we collect, no matter how perceptive the observers, no matter how diligent the research assistants, and no matter how much experimental control we have, we will never know a causal inference for certain." This is also called the Fundemental Problem of Causal Inference.

compared doctors of several similar groups, contrasting smokers with non-smokers in each group

Exactly. This is a correlational study. In an 'true' experiment, the independent variable, in this case cigarette smoking, would have to be manipulated. Since it is unethical to force people to smoke, a group of smokers is contrasted with a group of non-smokers. This is how almost all ethical medical studies are constructed.

They showed that even when you control for age, generation, race, location, etc. the smokers still had a greater incidence of health problems in every case.

In other words, there was a positive correlation between health problems and smoking.

Statistics CAN provide estimates of causality if used correctly.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but there is a vast difference between demonstrating causality and providing estimates of causality.

No, of course not, but you can usually get close.

And, how close you are to causality is generally determined by the statistical significance.

Edited by MushmanTheManic (09/26/06 10:28 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #6105729 - 09/26/06 11:57 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, and in an earlier post in this thread, I even stated that if a multiple linear regression could be run to control for other variables, I would be satisfied if as little as 10% of the temperature change could be reasonably estimated to be caused by CO2 emissions.

I'd accept similar estimates of causality depending on the method used.

Unfortunately the majority of the pro-global-warming research out there doesn't do any of this. They show correlation and that's it. They say "the temperature's going up, and CO2's going up". I need more. Where's the panel analysis? Why haven't they found an instrument variable?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: The denial industry [Re: Economist]
    #6107500 - 09/27/06 02:19 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Ok. To get back on track:

Should businesses be allowed to damage important ecosystems or pollute at will? Here is one of the few places I deviate from my normal libertarian views. Just as consumers should be protected from businesses that sell harmful products, I think natural ecosystems should be protected from businesses that harm them. If that means the business loses money or cannot access certain resources, too bad. They'll have to find a more environmentally friendly way to do commerce. (Adapt or die. :wink: )

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Oil, Climate, and Terrorism EchoVortex 1,073 2 09/06/02 06:13 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
( 1 2 3 4 ... 28 29 )
luvdemshrooms 39,602 570 05/03/08 12:51 PM
by geokills
* The last word on global warming
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Luddite 9,468 83 12/18/09 03:01 PM
by GI_Luvmoney
* Global warming: The Three degrees....
( 1 2 all )
Alex213 3,214 35 04/19/06 07:39 AM
by Alex213
* Last gasp of the global warming deniers
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Alex213 12,589 136 02/09/07 12:34 PM
by gluke bastid
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 998 17 11/01/03 02:44 PM
by d33p
* Global warming "past point of no return"
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Alex213 3,608 85 09/23/05 12:06 PM
by MagicalMystery
* Surprise CO2 rise may speed up global warming
( 1 2 3 4 all )
GazzBut 5,279 67 10/12/04 11:56 AM
by Innvertigo

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,134 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.