Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Global Warming is a Part of Natural Selection

thedailyconservative.net — Followers of Darwin, followers of evolution, do not fear global warming. It is all a part of natural selection, survival of the fittest, it is a part of our next step in evolution. You see, the earth is simply dealing with the pests that have laid waste to it ’s lovely rainforests, polluted it’s air and used all of it’s oil..

Bury

dlyconservative 26 days ago

7 diggs
digg it

LoneRanger85, on 07/25/2008, -12/+2Darwin was off the mark. According to him, "pests" like Africans and black Australians were no better than apes and would be wiped out within a few centuries. Darwin had more than a few loose screws. The only reason he's treated by the left as a demigod is that he's an alternative to the real God.
- greenfyre, on 07/25/2008, -0/+14And just where did you get this information? Source please.
  
  The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazi ...
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/25/2008, -0/+13What crack are you smoking? We've had 150 years since Darwin to learn more about the evolutionary process, and we know now that he was quite wrong on a number of details. This is the nature of the scientific process - self-correction through peer review and evidence gathering. Nothing is dogmatic in science.
greenfyre, on 07/25/2008, -0/+9"followers of Darwin, followers of evolution, do not fear global warming. "

What a lame and idiotic post ...

"than the little old sun up there"

The sun heats the earth. Very good, yes it does, just like your furnace heats your house - and the more insulation your house has the warmer it gets, just like how when the earth has more insulating gases like CO2 it gets warmer. Now was that so hard?

Sunspots and solar cycles repeatedly debunked by scientists
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-deniers-f ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...

Sun Could Cause 15% To 20% Of Effects Of Climate Change, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/08071 ...
- StepCousin, on 07/25/2008, -8/+1Do you know what started this "global warming" idiocy? A hole in the ozone layer....a hole that has filled in. Since wackos like yourself claim that human pollution created the hole, logic would tell you that we also fixed the damn thing.
  - ozydingo, on 07/25/2008, -0/+8Didn't that hole get filled in right around the time we had massive campaigns to stop use of CFCs and similar chemicals? Not saying we created the ozone to fill it, but we were able to realize a potential global harm due to our own action, curb that action, and watch as the threat reduce away. I don't think there's necessarily enough data (that I know of, anyway), to say conclusively what our role was in the whole process, but what was your point again?
  - StepCousin, on 07/25/2008, -6/+1The point is that we didn't create a hole in the ozone layer, and we certainly didn't fix it. It WAS DEFINITELY the catalyst that started this global warming craze, but now that it no longer exists folks like yourself have conveniently forgotten about it. And we both know that if efforts made by environmentalists led to that hole filling in we'd be hearing about it every freaking day of the week. Let's be honest here.
  - greenfyre, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5Yes, science. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
    
    The science and threat of climate change was already understood in 1958 http://youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg
    
    "Since wackos like yourself.."
    
    You mean like scientists with facts and evidence? as opposed to your fact free rant?
  - StepCousin, on 07/25/2008, -5/+1I should have elaborated. Yes, the Earth will continually get warmer. We're coming out of an ice age, FFS. Is man causing global warming? No, that's ludicrous.
  - ozydingo, on 07/25/2008, -0/+6I have not conveniently forgot about it--hard to do so when you lived in Australia in the last two decades when the ozone hole affected your daily life. You say we didn't create the ozone hole, but I challenge that statement. Of course, I'd say burden of proof lies on me in this case, and I don't exactly have time to research this, but to my recollection CFCs and the likes are known to destabilize (?) ozone, we (humans collectively) were using CFCs like Chinese use rice, we noticed a growing ozone hole, we stopped using CFCs, the ozone hole diminished. So I don't see how citing the ozone hole is beneficial to your argument, since it is not inconsistent with the idea that humans can cause large-scale environmental changes. Moreover it in fact loosely suggests that humans in fact can cause large-scale environmental changes.
    
    "[the ozone hole] WAS DEFINITELY the catalyst that started this global warming craze"
    greenfyre seems to have sufficiently proven you wrong about that, unless you simply mean that the ozone hole, for it's immediately observable effect on people's lives, was partly responsible for bringing the already known threat of global into popular knowledge--which may be true. But in that case it could have very well been a slap to the nuts that made people start thinking about global warming, and why should it matter if you no longer think about that slap to the nuts, and why should the fact that you're no longer getting slapped in the nuts have any bearing on your decision about the validity of the threat of global warming?
  - StepCousin, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2I hate getting slapped in the nuts. Getting kicked there is even worse.
  - StepCousin, on 07/25/2008, -3/+1By the way, how many people are in Australia? 6,000,000? There is virtually no industry there either. Wouldn't it make sense that the hole would form over the United States, the most industrialized nation in the world, which happens to be halfway around the globe?
  - ozydingo, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5I always was told it had something to do with the interaction of wind currents, though a quick search now shows that to be incorrect. Granted I was also 8 at the time of learning this stuff.
    
    From wikipedia:
    CFCs are well mixed in the troposphere and the stratosphere. The reason the ozone hole occurs above Antarctica is not because there are more CFCs there but because the low temperatures allow polar stratospheric clouds to form.[50] There have been anomalous discoveries of significant, serious, localized "holes" above other parts of the globe.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#If_th ...
    
    If this is true I can't answer why I can't find info on an arctic ozone hole. Perhaps it's a combination of the wikipedia answer and the answer I was told as a kid.
    
    I honestly can't remember if the ozone depletion related to Australia was from the antarctic ozone hole or if t there was one of these "localized holes" above Australia, but from graphics it seems that the antarctic ozone hold does indeed cover Sydney.
    
    Additional resources:
    http://www.wunderground.com/education/holefaq.asp
    http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/ozone/ant ...
  - raymondmarble, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4"I hate getting slapped in the nuts. Getting kicked there is even worse."
    
    At last, something I hope we can all agree on.
  - greenfyre, on 07/26/2008, -0/+4@stepcousin
    
    "Is man causing global warming? No, that's ludicrous."
    
    How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005 ...
    The Human Hand in Climate Change http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
    Myth 'Natural emissions dwarf human emissions'http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/233610 ...
    
    "How we know we're not wrong about climate change" http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/Presentations/O ...
LoneRanger85, on 07/25/2008, -8/+1The source game again. What every liberal does when his back is against the wall.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon," instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178

The complete title of Darwin's most famous work, often abbreviated to The Origin of Species, was The Origin. of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Preservation of the favored races??? Oddly enough, that title was shortened in the sixth edition.
- raymondmarble, on 07/25/2008, -0/+9LoneRanger85, are you simply incorrect, or are you intentionally lying?
  
  If you had actually read one of the books you are criticizing, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", you would know that Darwin was talking about races, or types, of plants and animals, not race in the modern human usage. For example, "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage".
  
  In the end, it doesn't really matter if you find whole Darwin quotes about racism, cross burnings, child beatings, UFOs, or alchemy or whatever. The science of evolutionary theory stands of the evidence, not the one who writes of the evidence. I thought you needed to be corrected above not because it has any bearing on evolution theory, but because your distortions are typical of the lying tactics of the anti-evolutionary crowd.
  
  And what's this about criticizing greenfyre for asking for sources, and then providing sources? You said "The source game again. What every liberal does when his back is against the wall."? No. Sourcing evidence is what intelligent people do across the political spectrum.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/25/2008, -0/+111. Virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed blacks as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some men of that time (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently opposed slavery (Darwin 1913, especially chap. 21), and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion.
  
  2. The mention of "favoured races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism.
  
  3. The views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not on people's opinions.
LoneRanger85, on 07/25/2008, -11/+1I don't see liberals being challenged for sources when they say they loony things they do.

Yeah, yeah, Whether it be Darwin or Woodrow Wilson or FDR or Lyndon Johnson, or Margaret Sanger, the Democrats are obsessed with wiping their bloody history of responsibility for slavery, segregation, lynching, black codes, Jim Crow, etc. http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/25/2008, -0/+10"I don't see liberals being challenged for sources when they say they loony things they do."
  Then you're not looking hard enough, or the conservatives that those same liberals are debating are not intelligent enough to ask for them.
  
  "Yeah, yeah, Whether it be Darwin or Woodrow Wilson or FDR or Lyndon Johnson, or Margaret Sanger, the Democrats are obsessed with wiping their bloody history of responsibility for slavery, segregation, lynching, black codes, Jim Crow, etc."
  The ideology and policies of the Democratic party have changed a great deal from that of days past - if your biggest gripe is the fact that the name remains the same while the policies are now ideologically reversed, then you need a better soap-box.
  - LoneRanger85, on 07/25/2008, -17/+1You are living in a dream world. The policies are reversed? Ask Clarence Thomas, whom you liberals call a lawn jockey. Ask Condoleeza Rice, whom you liberals call a house slave and Bush's brown sugar. Ask former Mayrland Lt. Govenor Michael Steely, whom you liberals pelted with Oreo cookies. Ask these people. http://www.blackgenocide.org/home.html Ask these people. http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm? ... Ask this guy http://wayneperryman.com/ Everything you think you know about the Democrat party and civil rights is brainwashing.
    
    If you joined the Nazi Party, you'd be a Nazi.
    If you joined the KKK, you'd be a white supremacist.
    If you are a Democrat, you are a racist.
    
    If you don't believe that, then why has NO Democrat leader ever come forward and apologized for the party's part in slavery and segregation? Why has NO Democrat leader ever thanked the Republicans for ending those crimes against humanity? Your very denial shows you Democrats haven't changed a whit. You are still in denial, spinning fairy tales about both party reversing coarse like some mad Oklahoma land rush.
  - eir574, on 07/25/2008, -1/+11"Ask Clarence Thomas, whom you liberals call a lawn jockey. Ask Condoleeza Rice, whom you liberals call a house slave and Bush's brown sugar. Ask former Mayrland Lt. Govenor Michael Steely, whom you liberals pelted with Oreo cookies."
    
    I'm not responsible for the actions of anyone else, just like you're not responsible for, say, the crusades. Do you hold democrats responsible for the actions of other democrats while reserving for republicans the right to be judged on their own merits? What if I sometimes vote with the democrats and sometimes with the republicans? Am I then a part time racist?
  - ApokalypseNow, on 07/25/2008, -0/+10"The policies are reversed?"
    Yes - why do you think Strom Thurmond switched from being a Democrat to a Republican in 1964? The Democratic party had changed from his youth, and he didn't fit anymore. FDR and The New Deal saw to that.
    
    "Ask Clarence Thomas, whom you liberals call... blah blah blah"
    The views expressed by certain individuals of a particular ideology do not necessarily extend to the whole party - every group has douchebags with extremist views that make the rest look bad. As a conservative, I would think you'd know this after 8 years of The Decider at the helm, or from the commentary of douchebags like O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Savage.
    
    "If you don't believe that, then why has NO Democrat leader ever come forward and apologized for the party's part in slavery and segregation?"
    Again, the party name is about the only thing that is the same from those days - the ideology of the party post-New Deal is radically different. Learn some political history before you attempt to criticize a group based on it.
  - greenfyre, on 07/25/2008, -0/+6"Why has NO Democrat leader ever thanked the Republicans for ending those crimes against humanity?"
    
    As if the Republicans ended these crimes as their first act the first time a Republican was elected.
    
    Don't get me wrong, Lincoln is one of my greatest heros. But even so, he even stated that if keeping slavery would preserve the Union he would do it.
    
    So how about the American government on behalf of the people aplogise for these crimes? and both parties can and should do so as well.
- ozydingo, on 07/25/2008, -1/+12"I don't see liberals being challenged for sources when they say they loony things they do."
  Then ask for sources if you suspect a conclusion being presented is made up. Until you get a reply with sources, you're free to believe that any unsourced / unsubstantiated conclusions are BS.
ozydingo, on 07/25/2008, -1/+7Is this article for real? Reminds me of the South Park episode I just watched yesterday where AA convinced Randy that he must accept that he is powerless to change his alcoholism without aid of a higher power. Yeah, we evolved to be the way we are. You know what else? We also evolved the mental capacity (at least, I like to think we have) to realize and understand the impact of our actions and (gasp) plan ahead!!
dlyconservative, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3I see some people don't know satire when they see it. I'll be following up with a real post in the next day or so. Until then, learn to laugh a little.
- ozydingo, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2Never underestimate Poe's law.
  - greenfyre, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2Agreed. Try noisebusters http://newsbusters.org/, just about everything on there is way sillier than this, and apparently none of it is supposed to be satire or sarcasm
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Global Warming is a Part of Natural Selection

Login or register to add a comment