Messages

46

Tactics / Re: Your Tactics

« on: June 29, 2008, 08:54:17 am »

Also, I don't get how the training works. So if I use assault weapons, assault skill rises, that's simple. But what about speed and health? How does the increase work?

Anyone able to help here?

47

Offtopic / Re: Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze

« on: June 27, 2008, 05:36:08 pm »

Now, sooner or later people have to take things on trust. I mean, you readily believe that guy that wrote the electricity spending article on Al Gore - but where's his proof?

I'm going to follow your advice and do a search on Google about the electricity bill issue. Turns out that multiple news agencies have quoted this and its even on Wikipedia. Now, in contrast to differences in opinions like ours; on whether humans cause global warming, this is just hardcore fact. Just like how the WTC 1 and 2 collapsed on 9/11. It happened, period. If you want to deny the existence of objective reality, how unfortunate.

I guess the main reason I believe we are responsible for the warming is cause I believe we are more than capable of affecting our planet on a larger scale than ever before in our history.

Temperature-CO2 discrepency? CO2 did not cause temperature spikes in the past, and as I also mentioned, temperatures have been fluctuating at times when industry was non-existent.

After all, my physics professor works at CERN and he's quite strict. I wouldn't have gotten an A for sloppy work.
That doesn't mean I'm right - not by a longshot . But unless you assume I'm a sloppy idiot who doesn't know anything about science or research, then it certanly doesn't mean I'm wrong either.

Nothing against your teacher, but very often, such people in these institutions are unaware about the big secrets. Because as media guru Marshall MuLuhan said, "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are protected by public incredulity." To the elites in any field, conspiracies are almost entirely non-existent, even though anti-trust laws exist (Just ask Microsoft). Not that I imply that they are involved, well some are anyway, but sometimes, these people either think its beneath them or, are afraid to voice out anti-establishment views. Remember that Orwell quote? Its hard to be revolutionary when you're going to fight against the establishment that you're an elite in. Thats why paradoxically, it is often the ordinary folk rather than the high-powered elite, who although has less access to information, are aware of the political malfeasance behind the scenes.

48

Offtopic / Re: Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze

« on: June 27, 2008, 04:47:46 pm »

As you mentioned before, lets get back on-topic in the off-topic section, hehehe.

However, I want to point out that you have inevitably furthered my cause after questioning my opponent's moral credibility. I'm sure you're aware of ad hominem attacks.

Just for your information, I just can't shut up on matters like this. And anyway, even without having an opinion, subconsciously, its definite that you will derive a point of view. I hope that's mine. Haha.

49

Offtopic / Re: Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze

« on: June 27, 2008, 04:06:05 pm »

What I find credible? Practicely nothing anymore....

If you don't believe in anything at all, our basis for debate disappears right? Hahahaha....

If you don't believe in the anthropogenic global warming theory that is...

FYI, I don't expect others to prove me right.
I expect them to get informed on a subject before they debate about it. I expect them to NOT take the high-and-mighty high stand and the position of absolute, undenialbe correctness, simply cause they posted some link. There is a differece between not being sure, but believing one versions, and being so totally sure that it's blasphemy to even question you.
You don't have to believe anything I post on these forums, I won't mind. But I will mind if you take the stance of absolute correctness and demand that I admit I'm wrong, when you yourself don't have nearly enough evidence to back your side.

In short, I'm not trying to convince you I'm right. I'm trying to convince you that just maybe, you're not 100% right.

Coincidentally, that's what I'm trying to do too. By the way, although I don't forcibly condemn any opposition, I try to convince people with facts in order for them to put the big picture together.

50

Tactics / Re: Your Tactics

« on: June 27, 2008, 03:58:11 pm »

I see. Thanks for clarifying. But at close range, full auto from an assault is bound to get a kill. GLs and snipers do this at long-range while assault moves in for the kill, if there's any left. Whatever objections, that's basically what urban combat is like, unless we just "Shock and Awe". Also, I don't get how the training works. So if I use assault weapons, assault skill rises, that's simple. But what about speed and health? How does the increase work?

I'm thinking about going Heavy laser for my next game (I've completed the game once and going to try again under hard mode). In terms of accuracy and damage, they seem to be quite popular.

51

Offtopic / Re: Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze

« on: June 27, 2008, 03:47:25 pm »

So you're basicely saying: "If you don't spend hours putting togehter your posts with loads of links, you're a hypocrite"?
Well, if that's your definition, then I guess I am. Shockingly enough, it doesn't bother me.

No ill-feelings there. I hope (sure) BT means the same. I guess his point was just to engage a discussion on the substantiated claims, not merely assertions.

The POINT, again, is that you never, ever, back up your claims. It's not just this topic. You did it in that terribly boring discussion about the minigun as well. You just shout something, and then you don't back it up. You expect everyone to defer to your superior knowledge and experience, though so far you have not given any indication that you base yourself on anything tangible. You want to make a claim? You have to prove you're right. Yourself. You don't expect other people to prove it for you.

I'll shouldn't and won't interfere with this, but TrashMan, I feel BT has a point. While you might say the effort isn't worth it in a "stupid Internet debate", perhaps this boils down to a sense of scholarship, if it could be applied here, as substantiating a claim is one of the main tenets of argument crafting.

Wether you believe it or not, I actually have checked out your links. They don't strike me as particualry credible - populists and sensasionalist newspapers and anti-global warming dedicated sites (and I actually hold these in higher regard than those newspapers). It was a interesting read touhg, I'll give you that.

"populists and sensasionalist newspapers and anti-global warming dedicated sites"...

In contrast with free speech accorded by the Internet, aren't all news companies "populists and [sensationalists]"? Their object is to sell news right? And that includes the news outlets that put out global warming propaganda... (Just for the record, propaganda is a technical word not meaning good or bad. It's defined as any organised effort to promote a particular doctrine or course of action. But propaganda becomes evil when it is promoting a lie or when the doctrine being promoting is prejudiced towards the common good.) As for "anti-global warming dedicated sites", I assume you mean GlobalResearch, which is not "dedicated" to lying about global warming, but as an alternative form of news. If you browse through the site, global warming articles are not prominent, considering most visitors are aware of the mainstream lying, and mostly focus on the political malfeasance that is common round the world. That gives it credibility, in my opinion, because having been established as a reliable source of alternative news, their articles have more force than mainstream ones.

If you don't find anti- (lying) establishment news "credible", I am curious to find out what news is "credible" to you. Anyway, I'm glad you found it "interesting". Who knows, you might change your mind in the future.

As George Orwell said, "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is revolutionary." I do have a biased against the mainstream view, largely because of government-sponsored terrorism. When governments are able to lie about killing their own citizens, you are assured that they have no qualms about lying about any other issue. When one goes against the establishment, he is bound to encounter stiff opposition because the majority are heavily influenced by the 'groupthink' of the mainstream media.

Ahh...good question. What IS the truth? I think I know, you think you know. And we're both happy with what we know..Irony is, we don't know for sure

Yup, life is so full of those little ironies. But, that's the point of having such interesting discussions, or debates if you will, about issues like these. To sift out the credible arguments from whole stack of information. Anyway, last time I checked, I have directly countered the points which you raised without getting a response from you. If it's the same "don't-waste-my-time" argument again, I ask for your indulgence in providing sources that contradict my claim that dissident scientists are discriminated against and harassed and lastly, about that CO2-Temperature non-sequitur.

Global Warming...lets see...the earth has become both cooler, and warmer throughout it's time of existence. We've had ice ages ( several ) and we've also had the reverse. I concede that the earth may at this point "possibly" be warming, but if it is, it's just part of the natural cycle of things. There is only one true source, that dictates how much heat, or how little that this planet receives...and that source is our star. The sun isn't a totally 100 percent constant heat source, sometimes it puts out a tiny bit more / less energy...it is not like a home heating system, where the temp is set and if you leave it alone it never varies.

The Sun varies in it's energy output, and even if it is very marginal in terms of a "galactic" scale, the effect wil indeed become felt here on this planet we are on. Our planets orbit around the Sun is also not 100 completely percent stable either, nor is it in a complete circle, hence the change of seasons. Being such, taken over the course of hundreds of centuries this can also somewhat change our weather patterns. Also, with the above in mind, it's pretty much been proven that the earth's magnetic field has reversed itself "many" times over the course of it's existence. Of course, that field and how it protects us from solar radiation is also a factor to consider...who knows exactly how such a reversal will effect global weather changes and patterns. From what I've read, based on the history / time-line of such changes, many scientist believe that we are "close" to a time for another such shift. Since we were not around, the last time to actually see what happens with the climate during such a shift...

...If the earth is indeed changing ( and I'm not convinced that it is ), it's most likely the result of a normal cyclic change based on what I've written above. A change we can have no control over...

We know so VERY LITTLE about how this earth system really works, yet as humans we continue to think we know "everything." Heck half the time they can't even predict accurately what the weather 2 days from now is going to actually be doing...yet the so called "experts" know 100% for sure we ( humans ) are without a doubt causing our planet to warm up. LMAO...25 years ago, Ted Danson, said "All life in the Oceans will be dead in ten years"...guess he was just a "tad" wrong.

Holy crap, 15 years ago all the "experts" were telling me that drinking my morning coffee was bad for me. Now those same experts and others have switched their viewpoints, now they say actually it's now good for me, and that they were wrong the last time.

Haha, thank you Falion for joining the discussion. You're right that the Sun is a major factor in climate science. Not only does its huge solar output, many many times (As Trashman says, Google it, I'm too lazy to check) the total power output from humans, but solar rays determine the amount of clouds that are formed which is a controlling factor of how much heat reaches the Earth. Thus, solar activity has a significant bearing on the Earth's climate. Also, I read something about a Milankovich solar cycle which determines how much heat the Earth receives in seasonal cycles. Not sure about that one. Perhaps some one could explain that in greater detail?

As I said before, the scientists at the IPCC are unable to factor in the huge amounts of variables in their climate models. Climate prediction is like a blank cheque. Only difference is, whatever the IPCC says today won't be remembered by most people in 10 years time. That's how they get away from it.

I'm also repeating this point that Falion made. The 20th Century has seen climate fluctuations that pointed towards global warming and ice ages several times. From 1895 to the 1920s, the media warned of a coming Ice Age, then from the 20s to the 60s, it was global warming, when CO2 levels were much lower due to lesser industries, and then until the mid-1970s, it was an ice age, and today of course, its global warming. This information was taken from Senator's Inhofe's work which I referred to in my earlier posts. How ironic that just as the Earth's climates fluctuates naturally, the media scaring also fluctuates and people just swallow it like dumb dogs.

Ok, for those of us living in the USA, take into account, that over the last 2-3 decades ( while not perfect ) we have made immense strides in cleaning up our own house. This country is cleaner now by far than it was just 20 years ago, yet even so...we are told almost daily, that by us living our normal lives we are destroying our planet. Perhaps so, perhaps not...but I refuse to believe that we humans just driving around going to work ( and other things ) are causing this massive ( over time ) climate change that is going to "doom us" all to oblivion. It's just fear mongering, by politicians wanting ever more power and control over the general populace. Fear is a HUGE motivator when it comes to controlling and manipulating people...a scared or worried person will almost give up his soul if he / she thinks it will save himself.

... I'm just saying, I think "much" of this current "doom and gloom" scenario could indeed be just "another" way those in power ( who ever and whatever they may be doesn't really matter ) can have more control over people.

One thing, that has for sure held true throughout human history, those in power "always" want more, and fear is just one tool that is used to accomplish such. Or course all of the above is just "my opinion" based on rational thought...which doesn't validate me as being right. However, fear has been used in the past to control the masses...it's being used currently ( in one form or another ) and will be used until the end of time, or the end of us as the human race. What better way to convince someone they need to "change" or behave in a certain way, then if they do not they are going to be the end of us...

Yup, you're right. I absolutely agree. We got to remember that the object of power is power. Governments throughout history right to the present have committed acts of terror which they use as an excuse to gain more power. A case in point would be Hitler's burning down of his own parliament and blaming it on the communists before going dictator. Then during WWII, FDR let Pearl Habour take place, it has been acknowledged, in order to get public opinion behind the war. In 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was staged to accelerate US involvement in Vietnam. NSA has admitted that it never happened. It was a LIE. The 1993 WTC bombings was directed by one Emad Salem, who was a FBI informant and ex-Egyptian intelligence agent, having been provided with explosives by the FBI who told him the were carrying out a training exercise. This story never made the mainstream news who hyped up terror scares. And I'm sure I don't have to elaborate about 9/11, the smoking gun of government-sponsored terrorism, and the subsequent attack on civil liberties it entailed.

In other words, such events are carefully orchestrated to get the people to demand their own slavery. In accepting the global warming lie, perhaps we could forget about the science for one moment and focus on the political and social repercussions. As the French said, "Cui Bono" or who benefits?

52

Offtopic / Re: Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze

« on: June 27, 2008, 12:54:45 pm »

He can find out (prove it) by himself in 5 SECONDS. What's hypocritical about it? That I told him "use google" instead of posting direct links? The result is the same (well, mostly the same. Not sure what sites he'll actually find, but there's enough of them saying otherwise that he will find some. not to mention that I removed most of the links from the bookmarks after I finished the paper. Like hell I'm going to spend hours looking for them again just for a silly internet debate).

If you can find stuff to support the most radical stands on the Internet, as you have insinuated, then how does one, including you, is sure about the information he has? I did not just post links, but I analysed them with regard to your claims. If you feel that this is "silly" and not worth your time, fine, no one's forcing you to continue. However, I would like to see where you get "the evidence stacked in the favor of the other side".

I never said that. I always take into account that I could be wrong. Do you?

I'm more than willing to learn, if you would look at the evidence that I posted and compare it to your own evidence, perhaps you would be able to deconstruct my argument and by proving it to me, change my mind. Likewise, the inverse is true.

If you're still not getting what I'm saying let me put it in clear text - posting all the links in the world here probably wont' change his oppinion. I doubt any link he can post would change mine. So why even bother?

I said my piece and posted my findings on this matter. There is no need to add anything.

Results of my research?
Let me put it this way...Mr. Gore was right (in general).

Speaking of which EchizenR, that solar system change data is not correct. Only 3 planets experienced temperature increase of any kind. Even if all did, that doesn't say much, since we know so little of the climate cycles on other planets that the data would be inconclusive, to put it mildly.

Oh, you shouldn't believe everything your read on the internet b.t.w. Honestly, you shouldn't believe ANYTHING you read..90% of the stuff out there on any subject is utter bull****.

I believe we also know very little about the climate cycle on our planet, given the large number of variables involved. And let's look at it from a moral point of view. If Al Gore was right, considering the successful evoking of pathos during The Inconvenient Truth, and if we need to seriously cut back on our carbon footprints, why isn't Gore setting a good example?

Al Gore's electricity bill goes through the (insulated) roof
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2153179/Al-Gore's-electricity-bill-goes-through-the-(insulated)-roof.html

In addition, since you haven't responded to my past arguments, I'll ask it again. What about the CO2-temperature discrepancies during the 20th Century. I provided my sources, as well as the "crap" graphs you referred to. I would like your expert opinion whether those graphs were part of your authentic research.

As to your claim that 90% of the stuff out there is "utter" BS, I doubt anyone can substantiate that. But I guess that's not your fault, one has to blame sites like Wikipedia for fragmenting the notion of Truth, so much so that people are unable to accept any other Truths other than their own.

53

Tactics / Re: Your Tactics

« on: June 27, 2008, 05:07:08 am »

May I ask whether its better to go with MGs or assaults. MGs seem to give a higher probability of hitting with more shots compared to assaults. In addition, assualts only work at close or mid-range, and at mid-range, its rather ineffective.

I'm thinking about going with 2 4-man teams, 1 assault, 1 MG, 1 sniper and 1 GL for each each. How's that?

54

Offtopic / Re: Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze

« on: June 27, 2008, 02:48:18 am »

I said I can post opposite but that in itslef wouldn't prove anything to him. How would he know that those pages are true?
Does it really matter even who's article one quotes? A respected scientists? A scientific organization? A news agency? God knows that each and every one of them could ce corrupt, bought, wrong, or jsut plain lying for one reason or another. The sheer volume of conflicting information on this subject is telling enough.

At the end of the day each of us has to shift trough things and find what data he thinks are credible. We form our conclusion and end up believing whatever we believe.

You're right. There is a huge amount of information on both sides. However, when one realises what the aim of the global warming movement is, to reduce industrialisation because CO2 is BAD. The US Climate Security Act envisions contracting the economy by 6.9% or 2-3 trillion dollars comparable to the Great Depression, or when fossil fuels are demonised just because of being CO2 sources, will result in untold suffering by the average person. Malthusian goals are behind this humanitarian double standards in Africa. They are not allowed to use their huge oil and coal reserves because of global warming. WTF do you expect some Third World country to go solar? Henry Kissinger himself wrote in National Security Study Memorandum 200 that if overpopulation threatened US interests, then the US should undertake a policy of "lessening population". Unless there is a big enough threat, people will not accept such far-reaching changes. Surely Global Warming is an excuse to restrict improvements in standard of living.

You mentioned that it doesn not matter how much souces I quoted since, the fundamental flaw you pointed out was that humans lie. If that's the case, the whole Internet becomes a BIG LIE, because you are unable to distinguish between lies and reality. But then, you also contradict yourself, when you say, even though its "God knows", "At the end of the day each of us has to shift trough things and find what data he thinks are credible. We form our conclusion and end up believing whatever we believe."

So you are in effect playing God? Able to know whether who is lying and who is not? While you believe that you can find out the Truth in one-sitting of "shift[ing] trough things" and coming to your own conclusion, I said something to that extent too, just that the process or "form[ing] our conclusion" never ends, it is constantly happening. If you're ready to admit that people are flawed beings, that they lie, how about they make mistakes? In doing so, there is nothing wrong, we all make mistakes, but while some is willing to correct themselves, others aren't.

I acknowledge that no one knows, or can know everything. Thats why as we progress through life, we're constantly revising our knowledge. People say that great teachers are willing to learn. So, even if one subscribes to one viewpoint, by analysing the other side of the argument, perhaps a change of opinion can be affected.

Thats the whole point of debate, to convince someone of your stand. But if you refuse to even take a look at the evidence and decide if it overwrites the stuff you know, you are not learning. You are just dismissing what people say by virtue of the fact that this is the Internet (where one can find anything) and conclude that those links may be respectable sources but are still lying. You are not willing to consider any other reality than the one you know. Already, you demonstrate signs of being a "blue pill person".

How ironic that the Internet, supposedly the last great bastion of free speech, as an alternative to the mainstream media, has been demonised into a place where lies abound. I admit that there are some far-fetched stuff on the Internet, who's to say they're not true. But, if one is looking for the Truth, he will adopt an open mind and be willing to accept new ideas about the world.

If you're still not getting what I'm saying let me put it in clear text - posting all the links in the world here probably wont' change his oppinion. I doubt any link he can post would change mine. So why even bother?
Why should I waste my time posting links? I really don't care if I get him over to my side of thinking or not, as winning or loosing this debate means absolutely nothing to me. (not that either can really happen)

Do you think everyone is able to know the Truth at one short? I didn't always take this stand. There was a time when I believed that Islamic terrorists pose a real threat to Western civilisation, that Osama Bin Laden organised 9/11, that Global Warming is caused by CO2. But then, as I learnt more about the world. More and more evidence stacked up in favour of one view, and the arguments on the other side just didn't make sense, or could not stand up against the other stand. That's what learning is about isn't it?

I'm more than willing to learn, if you would look at the evidence that I posted and compare it to your own evidence, perhaps you would be able to deconstruct my argument and by proving it to me, change my mind. Likewise, the inverse is true.

Even though you're maintaining a hard-to-reach attitude, I'm still in this discussion because when one is convicted of Truth, he will see to it that anyone possible hears of it. There is nothing that agitates so much as misinformation being treated as Truth to one that really knows. If this has no meaning for you, I suggest you examine your own conviction.

55

Offtopic / Re: Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze

« on: June 26, 2008, 02:18:21 pm »

Thank you BT. But that was not my point; trying to overwhelm opposition with links.

The object of those links are to substantiate whatever claims I made, otherwise, it could be just assertions. Now, whether those are true or not, the reader is free to verify the source of my references. If it say, came from an anonymous blog with no authority associated with it, then its likely to be false information. But, for instance, if it came from the Independent, a news agency in the UK, that has been operating for more than 15 years, from which I quoted one of my sources, then I'll say that its probably reliable.

I acknowledge that no one knows, or can know everything. Thats why as we progress through life, we're constantly revising our knowledge. People say that great teachers are willing to learn. So, even if one subscribes to one viewpoint, by analysing the other side of the argument, perhaps a change of opinion can be affected. (Note that this WILL include myself, I do not claim to be always right.) At the same time, my object is not to ridicule (I apologise if it seems that way) opposition, but to inform. There's no shame in conceding a point on this argument (Trashman). Such stubbornness will only result in a stagnant society.

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there are pains taken to bring it to light." -George Washington

I believe that, that's why I make the effort.

56

Offtopic / Re: Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze

« on: June 26, 2008, 06:47:01 am »

What discrepancies? What charts are you using? I've seen completely different charts thrown around that ranged from absolute zero temperatures to surface of the sun warming. Most of them are crap.

The dissonance of the temperature-CO2 relationship in the early 1900s, when temperatures were on an upward trend despite having little CO2 input. In fact, until the 1970s, the media was putting on Ice Age scares.

Scientists predicted an impending ice age in the 1970's
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

You can also find such records from the work of Senator James Inhofe, a credible man-made global warming opponent

Hot & Cold Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists who cover Global Warming
www.epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6345050%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

If you disregard such a source because of political bias (as if the IPCC is apolitical- ITS NOT- The Summary for Policy Makers was written before the scientific report was done), then I'll refer you to the Petition Project which you scorned, which was peer-reviewed by the 31,000+ scientists which you also scorned (more than the 2000 scientists of the IPCC, not all of whom are scientists in any fields and some have even sued the IPCC to remove their names from the politically-biased report- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/the_globalwarming_debate_isnt.html)

In any event, the Hockey Stick graph, which is the basis of the global warming hoax has been thoroughly deconstructed:

The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural
http://oldthinkernews.com/Articles/consensus_shattered_as_major_scientific.htm

INHOFE SAYS NAS REPORT REAFFIRMS "HOCKEY STICK" IS BROKEN
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697

There is simply no basis for anthropogenic global warming theory:

Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?
http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714

So you came across a article that sez 31.000 scientists sighting that petition? Let me ask you - how do you know that article is the truth? How do you know there actually was that many signatures? Assuming you click a link and you got a list of 30000 names, how do you know any of the people on the list actually exist or they are scientists? Common folk don't have the resources or the time to check it out so they just take this things for granted.

Finally, given the number of scientists in the world, and the number of scientists working for various companies that do contribute to global warming, 30000 is not a big number. Don't forget that most of those signatures could very well be people who were told "sign this or you're fired!".
Plants also use O2, when in the shadow or at night.

As I said, the 31,000+ more than dwarfs the IPCC's 2000, more so when the real scientific members number around 1200. Furthermore, the IPCC didn't even manage to achieve consensus:

Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge
http://newsbusters.org/node/13971

And besides, how ironic that you mentioned political scare tactics! Perhaps you haven't heard of the "horror stories" of suppression done by the IPCC's cronies in the business, political and scientific realm:

Climate Skeptics Reveal "Horror Stories" of Scientific Suppression (NYC Conference Report)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1981617/posts

Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LIN20070407&articleId=5294

Unless the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is some kind of mafia, which the UN coincidentally is, it would have been unable to get 31,000+ signatories down. And if you want to assert that most of this 31,000+ is false, I suggest you better base it on something substantial.

Who would have guessed that global warming would be beneficial. As you pointed out, plants need O2 as they're living (Duh...), but then, if CO2 concentrations rise, the output of O2 would also rise from increased photosynthesis. Could it perhaps offset the uptake of O2 from plants at night? I don't know, but if plants take up more O2 than they give off, then WTF are we still living on O2?

Global warming "is good and is not our fault"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563054/Global-warming-'is-good-and-is-not-our-fault'.html

Now I don't know if  you're really a meteoroligist or not. I don't really care - it's not like that would make you automaticely right. I did my research, I got a A and I know what I know and I believe what I believe. Nuff said.

If so, if a meteorologist's arguments (try to get the spelling right) has less force than a non-meteorologist, then I guess "it's not like that would make you automaticely right" applies to an even greater extent to people like us. So what if you "got a [sic] A". If I wrote how George Bush invaded Iraq because it had WMDs that the US sold to them in the first place (www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction), or how 9/11 was carried out by some raghead (just trying to imitate the American spirit) in an Afghan cave, I would probably also get AN "A" because it was the politically correct thing to say. As my teacher pointed out, its better to be politically correct than factually correct because people are ashamed to come to terms with the "red pill" world that Morpheus was talking about.

"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." -Morpheus

P.S For those you thought that the article that I posted was all thats there. Think again, if you were too lazy to visit the URL provided. I've added more of the article now, but I don't seem to be able to post the whole thing. So if you want to read the complete article, please refer to the given URL- if you're too lazy to navigate back, its here:

Global Warming Gets the Cold Freeze
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8583

57

Offtopic / Re: Who Runs The World

« on: June 25, 2008, 11:19:39 am »

Thanks. Don't get a chance to express views like this very often. Whole reply is now up, although in two parts.

58

Feature Requests / Re: Day or night during missions

« on: June 24, 2008, 01:14:20 pm »

I can't build bases at the polar region, game won't let me. Playing V2.2.1

59

Offtopic / Re: US Presidential Election

« on: June 24, 2008, 05:59:52 am »

Is there still a separatist problem there?

By the way, just to avoid a double post, I came across this hilarious news article, and wanted to share with everyone.

McCain strategist: Terrorist attack "would be a big advantage" in election
http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/23/mccain-strategist-terrorist-attack-would-be-a-big-advantage-in-election/

Not going to post the whole article, just a short passage which I found extremely humourous.

"As part of a series on The candidates and your money, Fortune Magazine asked Senator John McCain what he perceived as the single greatest economic threat to the United States. McCain's reply, after several seconds of staring "into the void," was "radical Islamic extremism."

60

Offtopic / Re: Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze

« on: June 24, 2008, 05:57:00 am »

Thank you Darkpriest for that enjoyable read. Its rare that I find someone that is able to see through the lies of the mainstream media and the establishment. It is true that its a waste of resources. One bill that the US Congress is debating regarding global warming would shrink the US economy by 2-3 trillion dollars, a contraction comparable to the Great Depression.

Regarding food shortages and other ills plaguing the needy, considering all things as well as the global warming scare and its so-called solution of global taxation, there's a Malthusian agenda being pushed through by the political darklords in order to pave the way for world government and population reduction.

You may want to take a look at this:
The Global Crisis: Food, Water and Fuel. Three Fundamental Necessities of Life in Jeopardy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9191

In 2006, the UN FAO admitted that enough food is being produced for 6.6 billion people to have an adequate diet. Yet, more than 800 million people experience extreme hungry. I would thank the WTO and their corporate criminals Monsanto and Cargil for that.

Admittedly, my opinions aren't as authoritative as yours as my credentials are minimal, but sometimes, its beneficial to look through the filters of others.