Staredit Network

Staredit Network -> Serious Discussion -> Is the Earth trying to tell us something?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by indecisiveman on 2005-03-30 at 03:24:31
Jukuren, are you on some mad spree for minerals? We are discussing the possiblity that a nuclear war would "destroy" the earth. Not just ranting about some useless spam. So read closely to our posts and maybe you can join in with something useful.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Axellraff on 2005-03-30 at 04:00:10
Yes, is completely possible the nuclear war can destroy the Earth, it's a news which I heard there is 2 years of that, which said according to the report/ratio, that there was enough nuclear silo in the desert of Arizona to make "Explode" the Earth 7 times!!! Only in one small desert of the USA... Maintaining the arms race is to exceed, even as we can say that we are to exceed by the events by times which runs, with the constant threat of Pyongyang to use these balisticques weapons against his Korean neighbors, without forgetting the State Indien and its worst enemy Pakistan, all two have the atomic bombs... and thus speak about Iran as long as to being the worst enemy one of American!
Is necessary it to continue... China which threatens to invade Taywan...

ermm.gif blink.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-03-30 at 04:41:13
QUOTE(IndecisiveMan @ Mar 27 2005, 10:15 PM)
Oh my goodness there you go again. If you are so sure I don't have evidence tell me on what you are not clear on! You have not stated it and I am just sitting here waiting because what else do you want me to do. I can't get evidence for something I don't even know I need evidence for. If you are talking about the earth won't be affected, well wth more evidence do you want then it alreayd happened! Seems like good evidence to me. If you want some stupid scientific report that says World War Two happened I'll get it but you need to tell me. And you did say I contradict myself.
...


Try carefull reading instead. *Hint, hint*
Please, go back and read my post(s) so you can find your own points to counter me with. happy.gif

QUOTE(IndecisiveMan @ Mar 27 2005, 10:15 PM)
...
"In your 1st post you said or implied that the Earth wouldn't become hardly affected just due to nukes. Then later on (last page), you state otherwise. What's your stand afterall? That, I can call shape-shifting mid debate for sure."

Hmm. If that doesn't mean I contradict myself I don't know what the ehck does.  shifty.gif Also, after reading your little "link" and it actually proves that I am right. In the topic "Global Effect" it even says PLAIN OUT, "it did NOT have a global effect". Pretty sure in those exact words too. So let us think, who isn't doing there research eh? closedeyes.gif So again, unless you are going to tell me what I still need evidence for(which I have only one argument and I already showed you CONCRETE evidence) then just stop talking. How does it go....."much obliged"?  sly.gif
[right][snapback]174007[/snapback][/right]


Bah... *Mumbles* It seems that I've pointed that one out earlier. But did you saw me persist at it? Answer: No. So please stop with the crummy getaway excuses n' get to what really matters (in this case, what I'm asking for). disgust.gif

Just had to clear this one out... go, naggy me. And underlined what should be the real issue and not to what you're tryin' to divert it from. tongue.gif
QUOTE(Global Impact chapter of Chernobyl at WikiPedia.org)
The IAEA notes that, while the Chernobyl accident released as much as 400 times the radioactive contamination of the Hiroshima bomb, it was 100 to 1000 times less than the contamination caused by atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the mid-20th century. One can argue that while the Chernobyl accident was a local disaster, it was not a global one.

(The source)

Eh, I just realized that you conveniently let slide by my Nuclear Winter 'crap' (in post #47)... what a darn coincidence, was it not!?! *Incoming sarcasm alert* pinch.gif

The "... much obliged" s**t I've talked about was meant to you only if done an well based debate from that point onwards. Wich hasn't happened so far... and don't get me started (again). dry.gif *Sigh*

Edit Add:
QUOTE(Jukuren)
Is it just me, or must I say for the whole of SEN? you people are completely off the topic. Please run back onto the track and discuss how Earth is trying to tell us something.


Well, since we haven't been adverted so far, my 'wild guess' is that it's hunky-dory to proceed with the current line of debate (read Nuclear tech's impact on Earth). cool1.gif
For this once at least, I tend to agree with IndecisiveMan. closedeyes.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by indecisiveman on 2005-03-30 at 05:55:11
Well besides the fact that you keep dodging my posts, I can hardly understand your horrible grammar. Oh, am I "avoiding" what YOU want me to say again? Well I still don't get your point. I proved your own "evidence" wrong and you say I avoided the part you want me to see. Hmm, well share the information that will allow u to win this argument. Because by golly I can't wait for you to post something decent. Besides telling me to show some evidence or telling me that I need to read your post you haven't said crap about any of your arguments. So, for the last time either post some REAL evidence or stop spamming.

Axellraff: I find it hard to understand any of your posts. I think what you are saying is that lots of countries have A-Bombs. Who cares. It has nothing to do with this and we already know about those countries. Even in Basan's little link that proved him wrong *cough cough* you will read that it doesn't have a global effect.

Anyways, stop spamming and get back on topic. Th earth will NOT be affected by a nuclear war(as proven by Basan's self-argument destroying link and World war Two).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-03-30 at 07:09:47
QUOTE(IndecisiveMan)
Well besides the fact that you keep dodging my posts, I can hardly understand your horrible grammar. Oh, am I "avoiding" what YOU want me to say again? Well I still don't get your point. I proved your own "evidence" wrong and you say I avoided the part you want me to see. Hmm, well share the information that will allow u to win this argument. Because by golly I can't wait for you to post something decent. Besides telling me to show some evidence or telling me that I need to read your post you haven't said crap about any of your arguments. So, for the last time either post some REAL evidence or stop spamming.


Gee... I should've known. Now, it's my 'horrible' grammar. dry.gif
And back at shifting the "burden of proof". Yet another news flash... (well, not really.) *Meh, rolls eyes* disgust.gif

QUOTE(IndecisiveMan)
Axellraff: I find it hard to understand any of your posts. I think what you are saying is that lots of countries have A-Bombs. Who cares. It has nothing to do with this and we already know about those countries. Even in Basan's little link that proved him wrong *cough cough* you will read that it doesn't have a global effect.

Anyways, stop spamming and get back on topic. Th earth will NOT be affected by a nuclear war(as proven by Basan's self-argument destroying link and World war Two).


Stop the presses, another upcoming break news... circle logic (only again). pinch.gif
What part of "large scale" and "Nuclear Winter" didn't you understand? Oh, wait... there goes my 'awful' grammar again. *Sarcasm* bleh.gif

I'm getting extremely annoyed by your 'proven' circle logics at this moment. Humph, at least admit when you're wrong. I do it when ain't right. *Double meh* ranting.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Axellraff on 2005-03-30 at 07:59:28
You are not a Modo Indezivman...take in easy boys!!! ranting.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by indecisiveman on 2005-03-30 at 17:06:34
I notice you just pick apart the topics in my post that are off-topic. I wonder why you don't go to me asking for your proof? Or where I give my proof? It is over stop spamming. You have yet to supply evidence(and the one link you did provide was easily used against your argument). So stop ranting about how I need some important evidence and where some post that is so magical that if I read it everything will be better. Your posts have been constantly :You and your circular logic." or "Read my other post to counter your own." or the great "You are dodging my posts." Anyways, go ahead and pick and choose what you want from this post you seem good at it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Axellraff on 2005-03-30 at 17:25:45
QUOTE(indecisiveman @ Mar 30 2005, 04:06 PM)
I notice you just pick apart the topics in my post that are off-topic. I wonder why you don't go to me asking for your proof? Or where I give my proof? It is over stop spamming. You have yet to supply evidence(and the one link you did provide was easily used against your argument). So stop ranting about how I need some important evidence and where some post that is so magical that if I read it everything will be better. Your posts have been constantly :You and your circular logic." or "Read my other post to counter your own." or the great "You are dodging my posts." Anyways, go ahead and pick and choose what you want from this post you seem good at it.
[right][snapback]176319[/snapback][/right]


The dress does not make the monk... ranting.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by indecisiveman on 2005-03-30 at 17:35:56
First of all, I was tlaking to Basan not you. Second of all, stop spamming with that same line over and over again. Say what you want or shut-up.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-03-31 at 10:22:22
QUOTE(IndecisiveMan)
I notice you just pick apart the topics in my post that are off-topic. I wonder why you don't go to me asking for your proof? Or where I give my proof? It is over stop spamming. You have yet to supply evidence(and the one link you did provide was easily used against your argument). So stop ranting about how I need some important evidence and where some post that is so magical that if I read it everything will be better. Your posts have been constantly :You and your circular logic." or "Read my other post to counter your own." or the great "You are dodging my posts." Anyways, go ahead and pick and choose what you want from this post you seem good at it.


*Lmao* Gosh, I should be trembling with fear from those veiled threats... Actually, most of your posts are the ones generating my 'spamming' by simply not replying to what I'm asking and dodging the real issue. But wtf, there's nothing new here... user posted image

"Easily used against my argument"!?! To wich one are you refering to? And have you read what I said (again) that makes your allegation crumble. *Chuckles quietly* And btw, I'm still waiting you to decently counter my arguements.
Yeah, I like those dodgy tactics you're using as well... since you couldn't throw your 'weight' around (merely saying the same over n' over without backing up), the next step you took was to attack my English skills. That imho, also failed miserably. Cut the humoungous crap you've pulling off 'till now and give me some more evidences of what you're saying that makes my points invalid (other than the circular logic of stating the same countless times). That 'exhaust the other side' technique won't do. tongue.gif They aren't 'magical' but instead proven. Alas, I can't say the same about your posts. Afterall, who's spamming who? huh.gif *Sigh*

Report, edit, etc...Posted by indecisiveman on 2005-03-31 at 18:56:11
Gosh you are getting annoying. Fine I will repost what you say once and for all.

Global impact
The IAEA notes that, while the Chernobyl accident released as much as 400 times the radioactive contamination of the Hiroshima bomb, it was 100 to 1000 times less than the contamination caused by atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the mid-20th century. One can argue that while the Chernobyl accident was a local disaster, it was not a global one

Now this is STRAIGHT out of YOUR link that YOU provided. Your argument was that a nuclear disaster would cause a global effect. Well take a look at your own stuff. Might I highlight something for a second. "IT WAS NOT A GLOBAL ONE." Hmm did you see that? OK then. So by your own ersources you have been brought down. If you don't shut up after this I don't know when you would. Clearly right there your part is wrong. A nuclear war wouldn't affect the earth, only the people and such.

Hmm I wonder if you need more of this so called "evidence"(that apparently proves the provideer wrong... shifty.gif) so I will give you some. In case you didn't know a nuclear war has alreayd somewhat happeend. Back in 1945 a country called the United States of America dropped two atomic bombs on the country of Japan. They hit two citires called Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Anyways onto the evidence. Here are some stories of what would happen.

In 1945 there was some initial speculation among the scientists developing the first nuclear weapons that there might be a possibility of igniting the earth's atmosphere with a large enough nuclear explosion. This was, however, quickly shown to be mathematically unlikely enough to be considered impossible, though the notion has persisted as a rumor for many years.

Here is the link that you should read link. It goes over all the global effects of a nuclear war. Nowhere in there does it say the environment will die out, or the earth will spin off course, or any of that otehr bullcrap people are trying to say. Now I am guessing after this you will just stop posting here. I think it would be best since you yourself have not provided anything beyond "Refer back to such and such...". Well I read your little link and it proved you wrong. Now read mine and stop posting.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by LastChance on 2005-03-31 at 19:08:29
Ok, but what about ocean winds carrying radiation killing other areas. Just moving an animal into another ecological zone(or plant) can cause a total shift or destruction of it. This is shown by the weed/plant introduced into the south that grew so fast that it could not be killed. How are we to say the a whole LOCAL ecological disaster could not GLOBALLY affect all others through small things. The Tsunami is affecting weather patterns and a bunch of other stuff, and i consider a nuclear bomb as a little more effective than a tsunami. I didn't bother reading your evidence, im tired of reading biased crap.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by indecisiveman on 2005-03-31 at 19:14:06
QUOTE
I didn't bother reading your evidence, im tired of reading biased crap.


What the heck is that all about? Biased? Heh. If you aren't going to read pure evidence then don't argue your point back. We are talking about the affects on the EARTH, not some little crop field down the corner. We alreayd know radiation can carry and yadda yadda yadda. What we are debating is the global affect(i.e. the idea that maybe something gigantic will happen causing the earth to change its normal orbit, climate, etc.). And of course a Tsunami will affect weather. What kind of...*sighs*.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-04-01 at 06:25:09
QUOTE(IndecisiveMan @ Apr 1 2005, 12:56 AM)
Gosh you are getting annoying. Fine I will repost what you say once and for all.


Not throwing your 'weight' around again are ya? And I'm getting annoying... Ah, that's a laugh! ranting.gif
And I'm gonna split this post to ease my answer and prob'ly preventing you to say that you don't understand where I'm heading.

QUOTE(IndecisiveMan)
Now this is STRAIGHT out of YOUR link that YOU provided. Your argument was that a nuclear disaster would cause a global effect. Well take a look at your own stuff. Might I highlight something for a second. "IT WAS NOT A GLOBAL ONE." Hmm did you see that? OK then. So by your own ersources you have been brought down. If you don't shut up after this I don't know when you would. Clearly right there your part is wrong. A nuclear war wouldn't affect the earth, only the people and such.


Bah! You're playing stupid aren't you?
QUOTE(Partial quote from Global Impact from WikiPedia.org)
...
One can argue that while the Chernobyl accident was a local disaster, it was not a global one.

They were refering to the Chernobyl disaster and not to Nuclear Winter. I also had presented that here already. And if you do read as you state that you do it wouldn't be dragged for so many time as it's goin' now. Hey so what's new... and it only has been the 3rd time (give or take a few) that you evaded to reply the Nuclear Winter arguement. I shouldn't be amazed by now, but wth it still makes me cringe when you act to pretend ignorance. Same goes for the rest of my post #47. pinch.gif

QUOTE(IndecisiveMan)
Hmm I wonder if you need more of this so called "evidence"(that apparently proves the provideer wrong... shifty.gif) so I will give you some. In case you didn't know a nuclear war has alreayd somewhat happeend. Back in 1945 a country called the United States of America dropped two atomic bombs on the country of Japan. They hit two citires called Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Anyways onto the evidence. Here are some stories of what would happen.

In 1945 there was some initial speculation among the scientists developing the first nuclear weapons that there might be a possibility of igniting the earth's atmosphere with a large enough nuclear explosion. This was, however, quickly shown to be mathematically unlikely enough to be considered impossible, though the notion has persisted as a rumor for many years.


Two nukes isn't considered "large scale". And we already went through this one before... and what else is new? Nothing. You're repeating yourself over again (circular logic). *Rants* Get some new excuses (read arguements) out of that mofo closet of yours, please. mad.gif

QUOTE(IndecisiveMan)
Here is the link that you should read link. It goes over all the global effects of a nuclear war. Nowhere in there does it say the environment will die out, or the earth will spin off course, or any of that otehr bullcrap people are trying to say. Now I am guessing after this you will just stop posting here. I think it would be best since you yourself have not provided anything beyond "Refer back to such and such...". Well I read your little link and it proved you wrong. Now read mine and stop posting.
[right][snapback]177305[/snapback][/right]


Woah... It was 'bout time! Something new coming from that end.
A site that refers to an outdated study from 1975 (and in a *.txt file)!?!
*Proceeds reading none the less* Eh, just decided to highlight a part of your link to show ya that it affects the environment when it's absorbed in our food chain. Or that even your accessment of the nuke bombs used in 1945 is wrong and outdated by today's standards.
Go, inquisitive mind of mine... And as you can see it isn't enough to throw massive reading material at me, just in an attempt to shut me up (and a void one it was). *Smirks*

QUOTE(Some paragraphs taken out of your link (LogicSouth.com))
...
All present nuclear weapon designs require the splitting of heavy elements
like uranium and plutonium.  The energy released in this fission process is
many millions of times greater, pound for pound, than the most energetic
chemical reactions.  The smaller nuclear weapon, in the low-kiloton range,
may rely solely on the energy released by the fission process, as did the
first bombs which devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
  The larger
yield nuclear weapons derive a substantial part of their explosive force
from the fusion of heavy forms of hydrogen--deuterium and tritium.  Since
there is virtually no limitation on the volume of fusion materials in a
weapon, and the materials are less costly than fissionable materials, the
fusion, "thermonuclear," or "hydrogen" bomb brought a radical increase in
the explosive power of weapons.  However, the fission process is still
necessary to achieve the high temperatures and pressures needed to trigger
the hydrogen fusion reactions.  Thus, all nuclear detonations produce
radioactive fragments of heavy elements fission, with the larger bursts
producing an additional radiation component from the fusion process.


The nuclear fragments of heavy-element fission which are of greatest
concern are those radioactive atoms (also called radionuclides) which decay
by emitting energetic electrons or gamma particles.  (See "Radioactivity"
note.) An important characteristic here is the rate of decay.  This is
measured in terms of "half-life"--the time required for one-half of the
original substance to decay--which ranges from days to thousands of years
for the bomb-produced radionuclides of principal interest.  (See "Nuclear
Half-Life" note.) Another factor which is critical in determining the
hazard of radionuclides is the chemistry of the atoms.  This determines
whether they will be taken up by the body through respiration or the food
cycle and incorporated into tissue.  If this occurs, the risk of biological
damage from the destructive ionizing radiation (see "Radioactivity" note)
is multiplied.

Probably the most serious threat is cesium-137, a gamma emitter with a
half-life of 30 years.  It is a major source of radiation in nuclear
fallout, and since it parallels potassium chemistry, it is readily taken
into the blood of animals and men and may be incorporated into tissue.


Other hazards are strontium-90, an electron emitter with a half-life of 28
years, and iodine-131 with a half-life of only 8 days.  Strontium-90
follows calcium chemistry, so that it is readily incorporated into the
bones and teeth, particularly of young children who have received milk from
cows consuming contaminated forage.  Iodine-131 is a similar threat to
infants and children because of its concentration in the thyroid gland. 
In addition, there is plutonium-239, frequently used in nuclear explosives. 
A bone-seeker like strontium-90, it may also become lodged in the lungs,
where its intense local radiation can cause cancer or other damage.
Plutonium-239 decays through emission of an alpha particle (helium nucleus)
and has a half-life of 24,000 years.


To the extent that hydrogen fusion contributes to the explosive force of a
weapon, two other radionuclides will be released: tritium (hydrogen-3), an
electron emitter with a half-life of 12 years, and carbon-14, an electron
emitter with a half-life of 5,730 years.  Both are taken up through the
food cycle and readily incorporated in organic matter
.
...
A U.N. scientific committee has estimated that the cumulative per capita
dose to the world's population up to the year 2000 as a result of
atmospheric testing through 1970 (cutoff date of the study) will be the
equivalent of 2 years' exposure to natural background radiation on the
earth's surface.  For the bulk of the world's population, internal and
external radiation doses of natural origin amount to less than one-tenth
rad annually.  Thus nuclear testing to date does not appear to pose a
severe radiation threat in global terms.  But a nuclear war releasing 10 or
100 times the total yield of all previous weapons tests could pose a far
greater worldwide threat.


The biological effects of all forms of ionizing radiation have been
calculated within broad ranges by the National Academy of Sciences.  Based
on these calculations, fallout from the 500-plus megatons of nuclear
testing through 1970 will produce between 2 and 25 cases of genetic disease
per million live births in the next generation.  This means that between 3
and 50 persons per billion births in the post-testing generation will have
genetic damage for each megaton of nuclear yield exploded.
  With similar
uncertainty, it is possible to estimate that the induction of cancers would
range from 75 to 300 cases per megaton for each billion people in the
post-test generation.
...
It is because of this catalytic role which nitric oxide plays in the
destruction of ozone that it is important to consider the effects of
high-yield nuclear explosions on the ozone layer.  The nuclear fireball and
the air entrained within it are subjected to great heat, followed by
relatively rapid cooling.  These conditions are ideal for the production of
tremendous amounts of NO from the air.  It has been estimated that as much
as 5,000 tons of nitric oxide is produced for each megaton of nuclear
explosive power.

What would be the effects of nitric oxides driven into the stratosphere by
an all-out nuclear war, involving the detonation of 10,000 megatons of
explosive force in the northern hemisphere?  According to the recent
National Academy of Sciences study, the nitric oxide produced by the
weapons could reduce the ozone levels in the northern hemisphere by as much
as 30 to 70 percent.

To begin with, a depleted ozone layer would reflect back to the earth's
surface less heat than would normally be the case, thus causing a drop in
temperature--perhaps enough to produce serious effects on agriculture.
Other changes, such as increased amounts of dust or different vegetation,
might subsequently reverse this drop in temperature--but on the other hand,
it might increase it.


Probably more important, life on earth has largely evolved within the
protective ozone shield and is presently adapted rather precisely to the
amount of solar ultraviolet which does get through.  To defend themselves
against this low level of ultraviolet, evolved external shielding
(feathers, fur, cuticular waxes on fruit), internal shielding (melanin
pigment in human skin, flavenoids in plant tissue), avoidance strategies
(plankton migration to greater depths in the daytime, shade-seeking by
desert iguanas) and, in almost all organisms but placental mammals,
elaborate mechanisms to repair photochemical damage.

It is possible, however, that a major increase in solar ultraviolet might
overwhelm the defenses of some and perhaps many terrestrial life forms.
Both direct and indirect damage would then occur among the bacteria,
insects, plants, and other links in the ecosystems on which human
well-being depends.  This disruption, particularly if it occurred in the
aftermath of a major war involving many other dislocations, could pose a
serious additional threat to the recovery of postwar society.  The National
Academy of Sciences report concludes that in 20 years the ecological
systems would have essentially recovered from the increase in ultraviolet
radiation--though not necessarily from radioactivity or other damage in
areas close to the war zone.  However, a delayed effect of the increase in
ultraviolet radiation would be an estimated 3 to 30 percent increase in
skin cancer for 40 years in the Northern Hemisphere's mid-latitudes.
...


QUOTE(IndeciseveMan on post #88)
What the heck is that all about? Biased? Heh. If you aren't going to read pure evidence then don't argue your point back. We are talking about the affects on the EARTH, not some little crop field down the corner. We alreayd know radiation can carry and yadda yadda yadda. What we are debating is the global affect(i.e. the idea that maybe something gigantic will happen causing the earth to change its normal orbit, climate, etc.). And of course a Tsunami will affect weather. What kind of...*sighs*.


As you can see by now, I even used your ol' link provided to support my point, even if it has 30 years upon it's shoulders now.
And hasn't our technology rate surpassed those and made new, improved studies about nuclear impact or even new bombs with a more efficient rate of destruction? Yup, both those were made. All I can really say about your 'evidence' is that is a biased one that won't do ya credit. bleh.gif
Next time really read and/or study what you present at folks, that's my friendly advice. closedeyes.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by indecisiveman on 2005-04-01 at 06:52:24
QUOTE
Thus nuclear testing to date does not appear to pose a
severe radiation threat in global terms.


*doesn't comment*

So even once I proved you wrong you just say I am being stupid? That doesn't seem very fair to me. Show me where in my link does it say the earth will go off orbit, the climate will dramatically change, or plant-life and animals will die out destroying the world. *Waits patiently...for a long time* Yeah I don't think you will find it. Keep looking, I beg of you. Yeah, stop arguing you are beaten.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PwnPirate on 2005-04-02 at 21:32:10
Here is where I come in.
QUOTE
Heh. If you aren't going to read pure evidence then don't argue your point back.

No he is not going to read biased evidence, didn't he just state that?
QUOTE
So even once I proved you wrong you just say I am being stupid?

Sounds like you.
QUOTE
Gosh you are getting annoying. Fine I will repost what you say once and for all.

You both are.

Now for the Grand Finale!

The Earth is not trying to tell us anything.
The End.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Oo.ZeALoT.oO on 2005-04-04 at 17:59:02
Dude no shit its trying to tell us something, We are censored.gif ing killing it with all that polution, Im my opinion that crap is only gonna get worse. I think that in about 100 years the same thing that happend in the movie The Day After Tommorow will happen. mad.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by HorroR on 2005-04-06 at 16:46:29
QUOTE(Oo.ZeALoT.oO @ Apr 4 2005, 04:59 PM)
Dude no shit its trying to tell us something, We are  censored.gif ing killing it with all that polution, Im my opinion that crap is only gonna get worse. I think that in about 100 years the same thing that happend in the movie The Day After Tommorow will happen.  mad.gif
[right][snapback]180354[/snapback][/right]


I agree. We are killing it. Most of TDAT might as well happen, but scientists have proven that some of it may not happen. And I heard that there's a virus going around that's supposedly called "Gaia's Revenge"
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BLISSARD[VdD] on 2005-04-06 at 17:19:55
If you pay more atention durring science class every year, you would understand where these disasters came from. A safety, peaceful, and beautiful place to live without worrying is he.l..l......GO TO HELL HERE FREE TICKETS LOL COMPLETELY FREE!! angel.gif angel.gif angel.gif angel.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-04-07 at 14:56:21
QUOTE(IndecisiveMan)
So even once I proved you wrong you just say I am being stupid? That doesn't seem very fair to me. Show me where in my link does it say the earth will go off orbit, the climate will dramatically change, or plant-life and animals will die out destroying the world. *Waits patiently...for a long time* Yeah I don't think you will find it. Keep looking, I beg of you. Yeah, stop arguing you are beaten.


Wich of the following you didn't grasp!?! Are my English skills too ortodox in this one? *Sarcasm*

QUOTE(Me in post #89)
...
A site that refers to an outdated study from 1975 (and in a *.txt file)!?!
*Proceeds reading none the less* Eh, just decided to highlight a part of your link to show ya that it affects the environment when it's absorbed in our food chain. Or that even your accessment of the nuke bombs used in 1945 is wrong and outdated by today's standards.
...

QUOTE(Me in the same post as above quote)
As you can see by now, I even used your ol' link provided to support my point, even if it has 30 years upon it's shoulders now.
And hasn't our technology rate surpassed those and made new, improved studies about nuclear impact or even new bombs with a more efficient rate of destruction? Yup, both those were made. All I can really say about your 'evidence' is that is a biased one that won't do ya credit. tongue.gif
...


Since you're acting obtuse, will keep at it because I know that am right in my PoV's.
The global environment is made out of many local environmental sub-systems that compose the larger one as in an interlaced retails matrice. When you affect the the equilibrium of one of these, it will reflect upon the balance of the larger one shifting it's normal patterns, even if slightly (for instance, as in global warming).

QUOTE(Jet Blast)
...
You both are.
...


Please read my above paragraph's 1st sentence to fully comprehend what am aiming here. Or even my post #68 in this thread. wink.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-04-07 at 15:30:36
Saying that a local event can't cause global events is absurd. If enough force happened then it could lead to a chain of unbalance that would cause the world to drastically change to balance out things.

If a local disaster destroyed many of the important rain forests you don't think that would affect the rest of the world? Where do you think most of the air we breathe comes from. Maybe it won't kill us, but SOMETHING globally must happen to balance out what did happen, this might mean everything dying.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-04-08 at 12:38:45
QUOTE(Devilesk)
Saying that a local event can't cause global events is absurd. If enough force happened then it could lead to a chain of unbalance that would cause the world to drastically change to balance out things.

If a local disaster destroyed many of the important rain forests you don't think that would affect the rest of the world? Where do you think most of the air we breathe comes from. Maybe it won't kill us, but SOMETHING globally must happen to balance out what did happen, this might mean everything dying.


Agreed thoroughly. wink.gif He tries to argue subjects that aren't in it's best knowledge areas and yet misses the point to when he's being proven wrong by clinging to his circle logic. As if he proved anything that way so far... rolleyes.gif

That's why he also tries to put words in my mouth in a vain straw-man attempt, such as these
QUOTE(IndecisiveMan in post #90)
... Show me where in my link does it say the earth will go off orbit, the climate will dramatically change, or plant-life and animals will die out destroying the world. *Waits patiently...for a long time* Yeah I don't think you will find it. Keep looking, I beg of you. ...

I didn't said those even in insane day dreams, how much would I say it in a serious debate such as this one. Simple answer: No way (, José).
But I find it sorta amusing never the less... happy.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by indecisiveman on 2005-04-08 at 18:12:11
I never said you claimed any of thsoe things. The argument is that it won't affect the globe. I am asking where in that document(or even your "evidence" you provided) did it say anything about the globe. If you want the truth, scientists have said not even testing has been done to prove it could ever even happen. It is in your "evidence" as well as my proof. And you know that don't you. Circular logic, eh? Well I call it aserting my points so people get them(although for once it doesn't work on you shifty.gif). You seem to be replying more and more about my comments and making a joke than actually debating the global affects. I wonder if you are running short on "proof" now? Well I know I am right and I will wait to see when you finally throw in the towel. Which for your sake had better be soon. I also find that you make many inferences. Which in a debate is absurd. All I can hope for your sake is that you just forget about this topic and move on to somewhere where your own logic won't contradict your arguments. Heh, how does it go umm....oh yes. Much obliged(double hint? or something...?)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PCFredZ on 2005-04-09 at 21:35:39
In response to the topic starter:


Some natural disaster just happen naturally, which is why they're called NATURAL disasters.

Volcanoes erupt, that's just what they're characteristically prone to do.

The second earthquake around Indonesia occurred only three months after the first was probably made more likely because the first had shifted the tectonics plates in that region to make a second quake easier to occur.

Those earthquakes in America were likely also caused by this. In fact, the Earth's rotation was also altered.

California is just crappily shaped by humans, of course mudslides would occur if we cut down all the trees.

Texas getting snow is, in my opinion, due to global warming. Yes, I know, snow due to warming, we've been killing the Earth for a while now.

And what would an explosion far away in outerspace have to do with the Earth giving us warnings?


I would like to note some of my own observations.

Nostradamus predicted the End of the World would occur at the end of December, 2012.

The Mayan calendar cycle ends at the end of December, 2010.

Nostradamus has been off with one of his other predictions by two years.

The tsunami in Sumantra was at the end of December, 2004.

Of course, I guess I could also say that 2004 + 2 ^ 2 = 2010 - 2 but that would be going TOO far... tongue.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Golden-Fist on 2005-04-11 at 17:10:05
Ok excuse me for budding in, I didn't read all 5 pages, I skimmed through 3 of them, but.
The earth is telling us nothing. The explosion? So what? There's like millions of galaxies everywhere being made and ending, they explode all the time, just because one is close to us doesn't mean it's some kind of warning.
Anything weather related don't worry about it's the FBI, which i'll tell you later.
Earthquake related, well I can't really say much but it's not really OMFGish. Yeah so there was a Tsunami, they're very rare, the last Tsunami was when? Before anyone on SEN was born? You'd think it'd come after a while.
As for the weather, according to my Sceience Teacher and other books they're is a way to control the weather. It's not been told how, or if it can be done with out technology but it IS possible. Something with controling the Jet Streams, if you can control those you could make a hurricaine the size of russia. This is very vital information, and will never be let out for 2 reasons.
One. it could spread and the enemy could learn about it, and we're talking about a weapon you can't put a defense againt.
Two. Supposivly, it would destroy the balance. By that I mean people in New England proabbly don't want to see snow ever again, which is good in their minds, however it will put A LOT of people out of busniess, ski resorts is a huge way to make money, if it's 78 degrees everywhere all year round, they will go out of bussniess and be poor. Also if they're is a hurricaine in some part of the USA and 20 people die, who knows if it was natural or if there was something behind the interest of the goverment. Or maybe they can't be trusted with it.

So anything werid weather related, like somewhere in Africa they got 3 inches of snow or something, it could be just a test for this new machine, or i'm just being naive, which ever you want to believe.
DING! biggrin.gif
Next Page (4)