# Abrupt Climate Change: Will It Happen this Century?



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

That was the subject of an email I got from a friend of mine today. The "gist" of the article is that change is coming, what are we going to do when it does?

From the press release:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/sap3-4-press-release.pdf
_
A new report, based on an assessment of published science literature, makes the following conclusions about the potential for abrupt climate changes from global warming during this century. _
 

_Climate model simulations and observations suggest that rapid and sustained September arctic sea ice loss is likely in the 21 century._


_The southwestern United States may be beginning an abrupt period of increased drought._


_It is very likely that the northward flow of warm water in the upper layers of the Atlantic Ocean, which has an important impact on the global climate system, will decrease by approximately 25–30 percent. However, it is very unlikely that this circulation will collapse or that the weakening will occur abruptly during the 21 century and beyond._


_An abrupt change in sea level is possible, but predictions are highly uncertain due to shortcomings in existing climate models._


_There is unlikely to be an abrupt release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere from deposits in the earth. However, it is very likely that the pace of methane emissions will increase._
 
More reading... not that it matters, we all know that when there is more mud days than snow days in winter we are into some doo-doo:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/default.htm

So, I personally am not too worried. I will probably live to see something of this come to pass. Mind, I am also STILL waiting for Cali to sink into the ocean too... However, being a realistic person, what is there that could be done realistically to help prepare for when the time comes. During the dust bowl days, no one knew the drought was coming, no one knew what to do when it came, at least there is some chance to "advance plan" on this, this time.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Going to? It already has. How many older people have you met who can tell you about a lake they used to skate on as a kid that doesn't freeze anymore, or a river they used to swim in that isn't there anymore (I lived in Japan and hadsome older folks tell me about riverstheyused t oplay in that are steaming heavy metal toxic wastedumps now mind you; different but somewhat related problem), or how there used to be more dragonflies and frogs? How about being bitten by mosquitoes in Scotland? Unheard of even when I was kid -- now they're worried about the return of malaria in the UK. Tornadoes dropping out of the sky in Bournemouth. Katrina was bad, and there's maybe worse to come. Lots of weird weather patterns, rising sea levels, the big kicker is going to be the pH changes in the oceans preventing the shellfish from calcifying their exoskeletons. That's scary. Not as scary as all the "Global warming? Blderdash, it's snowing outside and I'm cold" comments that always pop up on that other site whenever this is mentioned, invariably followed up with some vitreol at Al Gore as though he's going to force the poster into a gunless gay marriage and make him have an abortion paid for by universal health care.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003- thats pretty significant. especially when you figure that ice was there for a long frikken time.

its not like its just going to get hotter. it could be colder here for example. what it means for now is that things are changing. crazier weather etc.
thats what climate change does, and its already happening.
an abrupt climate change will come, sure. unless we find a way to eliminate people.
all the "going green" and recycling and electric cars isnt going to do shit, so long as were cutting down the rainforests:wave:


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

The world is going to end! Oh, no! Quick, lets escape and go somewhere else! Climate always changes. Evolution is organizioms who adapt to their environment. No climate model is complex enough to encompus all variables, and of those, there are tons of variables that no one really understands. As for ice melting in the arctic, I can tell you there is so much ice there its beyond incredible. I will also say that arctic ice doesnt melt at zero like the ice youre used to. There have been times when the ice resided and times when it grew. Its never the same. 100 years ago there were settlements in Antarctic. No can lives there now because its too friggin cold. At one time Egypt was a lush forest. At one time the arctic was a lush forest. At one time most of Europe was like the arctic is now. Climate changes. The Universe changes. Everything changes. You can worry about it and claim the world is coming to an end, but it isnt. If you want to hold on to the past as pretend that the world never changes, that fine. I think you are much better off accepting the changes and adapting to them. There is only one time in the earth's history that a climate change wiped out a huge portion of the living creatures. It was caused by methane pockets in the ocean. It was many moons ago. If you want to worry about a greenhouse gas, worry about methane. It will come for you in the night, and end the world! Seriously, I wish I could get excited about the whole climate change thing but I cant. I also never cared for the killer bees, Al Queda, or any of the other numerous boogeymen out to get me...............


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> Climate always changes. Evolution is organizioms who adapt to their environment.


Except of course that those changes generally take place over long enough geological times for natural selection to do it's job (or we get an extinction event, which is what we're in the middle of right now anyway with massive species diversity loss in all niches except McDonalds cows in the Amazon and Monsanto terminator corn) not in the space of a few decades, which is where we are now. That's why deer haven't evolved a way to prevent them jumping in front of cars or the Cuban land crabs haven't evolved a way around the roads that separate them from their aquatic breeding grounds. Anthropogenic effects are basically a super hammer of the gods as far as life on earth is concerned and we're the only ones capable of doing anything about it. Of course, that involves giving a toss to start off with, and people by and large don't so long as they're comfortable. But it will change -- see the global panic when petrol prices went up. Then it's all forgotten again when they come back down. of course, the planet will stick around when we've completely Easter Islanded it, it just won't be a nice place for our taxon. And in a few million years the roach-people will be in the same position, and so on until the sun explodes. So why care, right? Pass the remote Canada's next top model is on.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

We will not go extinct. The world is not ending. Enventually though we will get replaced by something better. Its just the way it is. Humans will evolve, and if the climate forces that evolution, so be it. Adapt or die off. Look at the lunacy:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070725-iron-ocean.html

And its not the only one with a great idea. Global climate doom sayers will do far more damage with their panicing and eco-terror than anything complacient people could ever do..........


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> We will not go extinct. The world is not ending. Enventually though we will get replaced by something better.* Its just the way it is. Humans will evolve, and if the climate forces that evolution, so be it. Adapt or die off. Look at the lunacy:
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070725-iron-ocean.html


I get the feeling you don't understand evolution very well. (Sorry to be blunt, not meant in a nasty way, it just sounds like it to me).


Accept2 said:


> And its not the only one with a great idea. Global climate doom sayers will do far more damage with their panicing and eco-terror than anything complacient people could ever do..........


I don't know, the complacent people have already done quite a lot of damage. I'm sure on the last days of the Eater Islanders there were people saying the same things, as they chopped down that last tree..."Don't worry, it's not like we'll strip the _entire_ island of vegetation and starve to death, ha ha ha"

*Replaced by something better...as long as you understand that means better suited for the environment then yes. Replaced by cockroaches and virus particles capable of surviving in out toxic sludge. 
and in one breath you say we won't go extinct, then that we'll adapt or *die off* (that means to go extinct). Which is it?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Hey if you guys are convinced that its coming, sell off all your possessions, stop using electricity and gas, stop eating meat, move to some place like Ghana and let the rest of us non-believers perish. Its gonna be a long wait thoough so maybe take some kool aid along.............


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Im gonna stick the challenge up to the doom sayers who say were all gonna die. If you truely believe all this doom nonsence, then show us. Give up oil, gas, and electricity. Only use windpower. Give it all up. If youre going to claim that I am complacient, at least give up those things to make yourself different. Carbon credits, cap and trade, these are all bullshit. If you truely believe this stuff, you will accept nothing but total complience of the the removal of all things that are causing it. If you have any doubts about it, you will be willing to accept half assed measures. Nothing better than seeing the stop gloabl warming bumper stickers on cars. Yes, everyone else is causing it, but not you................


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Only a Sith deals in absolutes


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

One of the absolute worst movies ever............


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> One of the absolute worst movies ever............


Hey look, we agree on something! :food-smiley-004:


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> Only a Sith deals in absolutes


Actually, my wife does as well....sorry no youtube clip. 

As for abrupt climate change goes, I don't believe it. Don't think it's going to happen in this lifetime or the next 100. I think the planet is in a constant state of change and that we will eventually overpopulate and starve ourselves to death. 

I think the only thing that can save us from ourselves is 4 billion casualty world war or massive plague of some kind. Then the clocks starts ticking again. 

Sad but true IMHO :food-smiley-004:


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Boy, you must be a bundle of fun at parties...








I thought the "global climate change is coming/is here" people were supposed to be the doom and gloom merchants...


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

I wasn't going to chime in on this one, but the level of ignorance (i.e. of the facts) displayed by our moderator is typical of what I often see by Trolls on environmentalist sites.

The first difficulty with a discussion like this is that we really haven't defined what "abrupt" or "catastrophic" climate change means. Yes, climate is always changing. The frightening difference in the last 50 or so years is the exponential rate of change that has never been seen before (for those who don't "get" math exponential is really, really fuc*ing fast).

The second difficulty is a general lack of understanding of what evolution is and how it works. Read the book, it's in the library. Then read some more modern articles. Understand WTF you are talking about before you start shooting off your mouth. Adaptation is not the same as evolution. Evolution is NOT an intelligent process, but a random one. WE are not the "pinnacle" of evolution, but an accident like evey other living thing.

That being said, I am not worried about abrupt or catastrophic climate change. I have read Ludwig Von Bertalanffy's work on Biological systems theory (Open Systems) and I think the earth is far too large and far too complex a system to catastrophically break down.

I need to get to work, I'll add more later. Here are some links for the curious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Bertalanffy

http://www.homerdixon.com/generalwriting.html

http://www.homerdixon.com/download/prepare_for_tomorrows_breakdown.pdf


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

The wonder that is the Emperor Penguin is soon to be no more. Same with the Polar Bear. Soon is relative of course. They may be around for a few more decades at best, but that is all.

I was not interested in and am not interested in debate on the question "is there such a thing as" because most of the governments and scientists of the planet now concur that global shifts in the environment are a reality, it is happening, there is not much can be done soon enough/fast enough to stop it. As has been mentioned, the global environment is big. The differences now are the minutia of how much how soon, and considering a year ago New York city implemented an official plan of evacuation in the event the islands go underwater to be reviewed every five years is in no means the only nod by the only government that change is a reality that is coming. The 'will it happen' is typical of any governments desire to hedge their bets, that will in time change to 'when it happens'.

I really am more wondering what people see as their means of making it through the harder or different times to come. 

Drought through major growing regions means food shortages. What will people do if their grocers have no product for the shelf? That is just one "for instance". Another and less obvious one to people is season time frame changes. Those can be far more devastating than drought or flood. One of my favourite historical tales of woe of a government spending millions of dollars on a fail was in Tanzania, when the British Government spent 160 million on 'ground nuts'. They had a beautiful chance, with perfect soil chemistry, perfect temperatures in the air, just the right amount of water... ground nuts have a 3 month grow cycle, the environment they put these into was only moist for 2 months and then was back into 10 months of sun baked rock hard dry ground; had the land had even 1 additional week of wet, they may have succeeded. They lost every single plant planted. That is the difference the length of a season can make, and it is not always obvious until it happens. Prairie people can tell you if it does not go dry in time wheat harvest can be lost, cherry people can tell you if it goes too wet too soon cherries can literally explode on the trees from swelling (this happens to tomatoes as well). Many of our food crops are where they are for a lot of important reasons, including time-frames in which they can grow to harvest and those times can be messed permanently by even a few days of shifted weather.

I expect to see changes in my life-time. I am wondering, knowing it is coming, what changes in my life/your lives are needed to make it past these changing times 



> So, I personally am not too worried. I will probably live to see something of this come to pass. Mind, I am also STILL waiting for Cali to sink into the ocean too... However, being a realistic person, what is there that could be done realistically to help prepare for when the time comes. During the dust bowl days, no one knew the drought was coming, no one knew what to do when it came, at least there is some chance to "advance plan" on this, this time.


~Peace~
Keeps


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

mrmatt1972 said:


> I wasn't going to chime in on this one, but the level of ignorance (i.e. of the facts) displayed by our moderator is typical of what I often see by Trolls on environmentalist sites.


Funny, thats the exact argument bible thumpers say when I discuss how the earth isnt 5000 years old, or what 9/11 conspiracy theorists say when I tell them Bush didnt do it........


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

> as for ice melting in the arctic, I can tell you there is so much ice there its beyond incredible.


excellent- so theres no need to fear an ice shortage- phew!



> I will also say that arctic ice doesnt melt at zero like the ice youre used to. There have been times when the ice resided and times when it grew. Its never the same. 100 years ago there were settlements in Antarctic. No can lives there now because its too friggin cold


ahh so its all good then- as long as we dont live there than how can it affect us. nice



> At one time Egypt was a lush forest. At one time the arctic was a lush forest. At one time most of Europe was like the arctic is now


correct. but those places were situated in different parts of the earth at those times. its called continental drift. and the continents still drift- but thats an entirely different thing.
the continents at whatever period that inhabited the extreme poles were under ice.



> If you want to hold on to the past as pretend that the world never changes, that fine. I think you are much better off accepting the changes and adapting to them.


yup no sense holding on to old fashioned stuff like fresh drinking water, clean air and wildlife. global warming? bah, ill just turn up the air conditioner


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Sounds like a plan..........


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> Funny, thats the exact argument bible thumpers say when I discuss how the earth isnt 5000 years old, or what 9/11 conspiracy theorists say when I tell them Bush didnt do it........


Just out of interest, how do you know the earth isn't 5,000 years old? Is it maybe because that's what the geologists and the evolutionary biologists and the paleontologists tell you?
Not arguing the point, of course it's a ludicrous position that the earth is 5,000 years old (...everyone knows the earth just poofed into existence last Thursday at 4:15 pm and we all have implanted memories , just trying to establish why their (geologists, paleontologists, etc.) word is better than that of the climate scientists and meteorologists et al. who say we are experiencing anthropogenic climate change. 

My feeling is that it's because the former doesn't affect your comfort levels.
There's a lot of cognitive dissonance in the denialist positions you mention, although the memes of climate change denial, YEC, holocaust denial etc. do often seem to be linked.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Yes not argeeing with you puts me on the same level as Erst Zundel. Brilliant arguement. Excellent. Is this science or religion?...........


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> Only a Sith deals in absolutes


Which is itself an absolute.


And therein lies the problem, and most arguments in this thread are based more on emotion than anything else.

I've found much to agree & disagree with-just within any one post.

And a lot of irrelevant info has been brought into it as well.

I agree with accept that there has always been climate change--but I disagree with much of the rest of his original post.
I also disagree with much of the scaremongering that goes on on all sides of these debates.

There are no easy answers here, other than to live as responsibly as you can, taking into consideration that some solutions proposed have serious consequences somewhere else. So the question is which consequences can you live with most easily.

We're certainly not going to come to a consensus here.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> Yes not argeeing with you puts me on the same level as Erst Zundel. Brilliant arguement. Excellent. Is this science or religion?...........


What? No, just asking why you trust one bunch of scientists (the earth science guys) but not another (climatologists)? What are the criteria for deciding one is good and the other is bad science (I almost used the "sound science" sound bite)?

(And you brought up the guilt by association thing: not agreeing with you puts mrmatt1972--and me too, right?--on the same level as Ken Ham, Jack Chick, Casey Luskin, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. How come it's OK for you to do but not anyone else anyway (leaving aside the fact that's not what was being done here...)


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I wouldn't put Ken Ham, Jack Chick, Casey Luskin, and Kent Hovind all on the same level. There's quite a spread of credentials, purpose, method, credibility, etc. there.


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

Wow, a lot can happen on a thread here in 14 hours...

We've got name calling, unreasonable challenges, religion, more name calling. I think I'll just get back to addressing climate change.

Climate is being changed by human activity. This change is dramatic, easily documented and highly visible. This change is affecting species that live in fringe environments (Arctic, Antarctic, desert). There are NO valid arguments against these facts.

What is not clear is the extent to which our collective activity will change the climate. Will we have more, and worse, storms, droughts, forest fires as a result of human activity? Probably. Or should I say- absolutely.

Will sea levels rise to the point where coastal populations worldwide are forced to relocate? Maybe.

Will droughts in some regions cause massive famines - probably?

Will increased rainfall elsewhere cause more frequent flooding? Yeah, probably.

Will these new and more frequent difficulties and scarcities put pressure on human and animal populations - you bet.

Does all this count as "catastrophic" change. I don't think so. Catastrophic change is change so abrupt and severe that life on this planet will possibly cease. We're talking ice age in a year, or subtropical temps up here in the great white north - depending on which model is right...

So what seems clear to me, and is becoming clearer to others is that the real danger _to humans_ in the near term is not extinction or the need to radically adapt, but the real possibility of wars due to the need for expansion of territory.

What also IS clear is the need for all of us to act responsibly. To buy locally, to carpool, cycle or use transit whenever possible. To NOT keep up with fashion, to insulate our homes, to turn down the thermostat, to not use plastic bags, to not wrap presents, or at least use reusable bags. Reasonable, doable lifestyle changes that are, conveniently, healthier choices for ourselves too.

Course, I could be wrong about catastrophic change. Some people think we are damn near the "tipping point" as we speak.

http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html

Matt


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

zontar said:


> Which is itself an absolute.
> 
> There are no easy answers here, other than to live as responsibly as you can...


First off, you win the Mr. Obvious prize for the George Lucas dialogue 

The first steps to a cure of any addiction are realisation and admission there's a problem, and flat-out denialism in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary isn't going to provide that step. We as a culture are addicted to a wasteful lifestyle that is choking the environment in which we live. And we haven't got past that stage of realisation yet with some people, so how can we convince someone going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" to live responsibly? And if that were possible, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place, and there wouldn't be a consumer market for Hummers...


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

zontar said:


> I wouldn't put Ken Ham, Jack Chick, Casey Luskin, and Kent Hovind all on the same level. There's quite a spread of credentials, purpose, method, credibility, etc. there.


Ken Ham: creationist nutbar
Jack Chick: creationist nutbar
Casey Luskin: creationist nutbar
Ray Comfort: creationist nutbar 
Kirk Cameron: creationist nutbar
Kent Hovind: convicted felon creationist nutbar

I see what you mean...I wouldn't trust that last guy one bit


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> We as a culture are addicted to a wasteful lifestyle that is choking the environment in which we live. And we haven't got past that stage of realisation yet with some people, *so how can we convince someone going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" to live responsibly?* And if that were possible, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place, and there wouldn't be a consumer market for Hummers...


....Scare the crap out of them to get the ball rolling then use an educational campaign to tug them along. That's seems to be the marketing campaign du jour don't you think?

PS> I am a whole lot of fun at parties and am far from being a gloom and doomer. However, unless you can figure out how to effectively motivate 6 billion + people to change the way they live I think my assessment is accurate.

:food-smiley-004: (that's me at a party! lol!)


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> Funny, thats the exact argument bible thumpers say when I discuss how the earth isnt 5000 years old, or what 9/11 conspiracy theorists say when I tell them Bush didnt do it........


BTW, what I said-and what you quoted me saying- does not count as an argument. It was simply an observation. If this was an attempt to discredit me or my arguments by trying to lump me, or climate change arguments in general, into the same basket as "bible thumpers" and "9/11 conspiracy theorists" you are sadly mistaken. Hard science is in a very different league than those two examples.

A question based on my initial observation and you more recent comment quoted above: Is it possible that you go onto forums and stir the pot just to see what kind of reaction you'll get? I certainly don't spend time fishing around for people to fight with, bible thumper, conspiracy theorist or climate change naysayer...


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

keeperofthegood said:


> That was the subject of an email I got from a friend of mine today....


I'm betting keeperofthegood is beginning to wish his friend had sent a Nigerian 419 scam email instead right about now...



> Lagos, Nigeria.
> Attention: The President/CEO
> 
> Dear Sir,
> ...


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

........And when you guys have spent billions and trillions of dollars on setting up carbon markets to make the old Enron guys rich, and bought Enron tech and given those guys all the long term maintenence contracts they are asking for. And in 5 -10 years when solar power and Fusion power come into dominence, will you still ignore the advancement of technology, and proclaim we are all going to die because we cant look into the future and see the impact of technology? You would rather invest in old tech and assume that in 100 years everything on the planet will be exactly the same? Sorry, I must be a denier because I dont buy into doom and gloom. I must be a denier because I believe in technology not in politics. I must be a denier because I dont take a side religiously and accept their version without question. I must be a denier because I dont chastize other people about how they live their lives, when its exactly the same way I live. Again, how many of you preachers have gas, oil, or electrical heat in your homes? How many drive a gas car? Practise what you preach and live by your beliefs. Dont practise do what I say not as I do. Technology is the future, not doom and gloom............


----------



## xuthal (May 15, 2007)

DELETED.
Too controversial for me to get involved.


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

*Logical fallacies*

It is very difficult to have a conversation, let alone an argument, with someone who seems to have no idea how to argue. As a result, for the benefit of Accept2, and the enjoyment of others, I will leave this list of logical fallacies for your perusal. It is missing a few (like shifting the goalposts) but is pretty good and easy to read. Since this isn't a philosophy board I'm going to go back to guitar stuff now. 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Matt


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> Ken Ham: creationist nutbar
> Jack Chick: creationist nutbar
> Casey Luskin: creationist nutbar
> Ray Comfort: creationist nutbar
> ...


A question--are you aware of any creationists that aren't nutbars--at least according to you?
Otherwise you are showing a bias, (don't worry--we all have biases.) that is a gross over-generalization.

For example--Jack Chick doesn't care about facts--he makes up his own. Ken Ham interprets the same facts you interpret--but in a different way--both of you according to your own bias. That's a huge difference in my book.

Otherwise you may as well brand everybody here as the same, becuase we're all nutbar musicians. And even worse--most of us are guitarists!


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

zontar said:


> A question--are you aware of any creationists that aren't nutbars--at least according to you?
> 
> Otherwise you are showing a bias, (don't worry--we all have biases.) that is a gross over-generalization.
> 
> For example--Jack Chick doesn't care about facts--he makes up his own. Ken Ham interprets the same facts you interpret--but in a different way--both of you according to your own bias. That's a huge difference in my book.


So, Ken Ham, who says dinosaurs lived on the earth along with people, they're in the bible (which is inerrant), and the earth is 6000 years old -- right around the time the Sumerians invented glue (all of which is directly related to accept's comment about YECs, which is why I brought him up) -- has more credibility than Jack Chick because the latter doesn't care about facts? Wow. I admit I definitely have a bias toward reality and rational thought.
I'm not going to get into this OK?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Have you been away from planet Earth for many, many years?


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> So, Ken Ham, who says dinosaurs lived on the earth along with people, they're in the bible (which is inerrant), and the earth is 6000 years old -- right around the time the Sumerians invented glue (all of which is directly related to accept's comment about YECs, which is why I brought him up) -- has more credibility than Jack Chick because the latter doesn't care about facts? Wow. I admit I definitely have a bias toward reality and rational thought.
> I'm not going to get into this OK?



"So, you're telling us that you don't believe that climate change is the beginning of the Apocalypse?" 

:wink:


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

And now for something completely different. Recycling is the biggest corporate/government bamboozal of the 21st century. 9kkhhd


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

NB-SK said:


> "So, you're telling us that you don't believe that climate change is the beginning of the Apocalypse?"


Of course not. Global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.


That or it's the FSM hugging us tighter with his noodly appendages.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Finally, something that makes complete sense, with data too! kkjuw


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

finally a reasonable explanation.

Damn pirates!


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> Of course not. Global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
> 
> 
> That or it's the FSM hugging us tighter with his noodly appendages.


this post wins the "BEST POST OF THE YEAR (IN FRASER'S OPINION) AWARD"
all you get for winning this award is my respect, but hey, now you can go type something really stupid and i wont bat an eye.
pirates are cool.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> Of course not. Global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
> 
> 
> That or it's the FSM hugging us tighter with his noodly appendages.


"Oh, my...So...This means that Somali pirates are actually trying to save the world every time they board an oil tanker!? Wait a sec...So, this would also imply that the UN is threatening our existence by sending 'peacekeepers' there?! I knew it!" 

:banana:


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> I'm not going to get into this OK?


Wasn't trying to start anything.
And even though you didn't answer my questions directly--you still answered them from your perspective, which is what we're all doing in this thread.


----------

