I don't know. We know global warming is real, but no one can accurately say it's man made. Over 95% of the carbon emissions are naturally made, the majority of emissions coming from volcanoes. These things were around long before the industrial age, and life on earth seems to have evolved just fine. We also know our earth has experienced global warming in the past, so this may be a cyclical event man has no influence over.

You really should read more about what climate scientists who study this say. For one, the massive climate changes in the past coincide with mass extinctions. For another, study of how the environment responds to differing levels of CO2 shows that small changes in total CO2 output can cause significant changes in climate (as in, the kind that causes mass extinctions). Then there's also the whole idea of multipliers, where small warming causes a change like the melting of permafrost, which makes that part of the earth less reflective (and also amounts to a change in climate).

In the 70s "they" said we were facing an ice age. Did we? Remember acid rain? Another 70s scare that turned out to be a red herring for environmentalists. Good science always prevails, and there's probably a good reason why Al Gore is being sued for fraud.

Did "they" say that? From what I've read on the supposed new ice age, there was a small minority scientists who said that, and the media amplified it completely out of proportion.

It's funny that you bring up acid rain though. You know why that went away? We implemented cap and trade for sulfur dioxide emissions, and it essentially eradicated the problem.

As for the "good reason" Al Gore is being sued for fraud, it's because there's a tremendous amount of right-wing political groups and corporations that want to discredit the entire environmental movement. A cost-effective way to do that is to try to tarnish the movement's most recognizable representative.

I can give you the Libertarian perspective: you solve it with lawsuits. If you pollute and it affects the health of others, then they have a right to sue for damages. There's no corporation limit to liability in a free market, and class actions would prove to be silly. People individually would sue the company and that would deter them from damaging the environment.

Ahh, so that's how you completely disguise all responsibility. If I get killed in a road accident during a freak snowstorm caused by global warming, mintbbb has to choose between using the life insurance money to settle affairs and pay off debts she may not be able to service without my income, or gamble it by trying to engage in a lawsuit against a coalition of oil, gas, coal, and power companies?

If we were talking about someone pissing in my water supply, would I really have to drink it, and then later prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it did some harm to me before I could expect law enforcement to get involved? Couldn't I just say "I don't consent to have pee put in my drinking water!" and get the police to stop people who wouldn't comply?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I disagree that the government needs to "create a market for something". If it is one thing governments are very poor at doing is creating markets for things. People do this better and faster than government think tanks. I do however support new understandings in pollution in how it interacts with property rights. If you clog my air with filth, there has to be some legal ramification to that. It is due time to assess how property is defined in terms of air, water, and the like, I welcome that conversation.
(edited: Spelling, dear god man spelling)


I don't mean "create a market" meaning "we're going to use subsidies and taxes to make something that isn't economically viable on its own popular", I mean literally create a market as in "we're going to stop people from taking other people's stuff".

Read up more on the theory and practice of cap and trade. For real-world results, look at the sulfur cap-and-trade they implemented in the 70's to combat acid rain.

The basic idea is that we get an independent read on how much CO2 capacity there is in the environment, and then auction off tradeable permits for emissions. The market sets the price via supply and demand.

^ I'm not sure what they are measuring. A quick search resulted in some air pollution numbers from 2000, but the US's portion of the world's output was a little below 45%.

Carbon Monoxide: 13.86%
Sulfur Dioxide: 8.41%
Nitrogen Oxide: 6.52%
Non-methane VOC: 9.78%

Maybe they meant 45% of the total released from all vehicles worldwide? That's the best I can think of.

>> ^potchi79:
No, he's an idiot for assuming people are readily drinking a cocktail containing kerosene, sulfuric acid and axle grease.

Well, to be honest, I was skeptical when I first heard that kids breathe air-conditioner gas to get high, that drugs are regularly mixed with rat poison or cow de-wormer and that some people like to strangle themselves while masturbating.

At the risk of being called old at the age of 26, I'll say that while in the '80s it was the most preposterous recipe for a drink conceivable, with kids these days, who knows

>> ^demon_ix:
>> ^fjules:
Yeah, he is idiot because he hasn't been on internet for long enough to know what means. Arrogant bastards.

No, that doesn't make him an idiot, that just makes him a noob. He is, however, an idiot for declaring a half-speculation about an internet phenomenon on TV when a little research could have revealed his mistake and saved him quite a bit of professional ridicule.


No, he's an idiot for assuming people are readily drinking a cocktail containing kerosene, sulfuric acid and axle grease.

Animals and humans have similar evolutionary backgrounds. This outlines some of the elements in the structure of animals and humans.

Macro Elements
* Calcium (Ca)
* Phosphorous (Ph)
* Magnesium (Mg)
* Sodium (Na)
* Potassium (K)
* Chlorine (Cl)
* Sulfur (S)

Micro Elements
* Iron (Fe)
* Copper (Cu)
* Manganese (Mn)
* Iodine (I)
* Zinc (Zn)
* Selenium (Se)
* Fluorine (Fl)
* Cobolt (Co)
* Molybdenum (Mo)
* Chromium (Cr)

Other Elements (These elements are all toxic at high levels)
* Lead (Pb)
* Nickel (Ni)
* Silicon (Si)
* Vanadium (Vn)

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_role_of_metals_in_human_body

^ some of that is sulfur dioxide.

about 3% of 3% according to my pie charts.

So Jesus and Moses were walking around heaven one day when Moses says "You know Jesus? I've been watching those humans down on Earth and I've noticed that they are constantly engaged in the heinous act of oral sex!"
"Yeah, I've noticed that too," Jesus replied.
"Well I think that you should punish those evil sinners with sulfur and brimstone, just like when you flooded the Earth, so that they can atone for their sins!"
"I don't think so," said Jesus. "Instead, I will use a technique of modern pyscho pathology and reward those who have kept their mouth clean from this abomination with a gold Rolex watch. And on the back of this watch I will put a suitable inscription so that everyone will know how righteous they are."

And do you know what that inscription says?


Neither do I......

"Mega Bomba En San Juan De La Vega"

Roughly translated:
Super bombs, to celebrate the saint of the community in San Juan de la Vega Celaya in Guanajuato Mexico.

The Carnival of St John of the valley, in honor of the saint of the same name, is unique in that all day people detonate explosives produced by Caceres, made of chlorate and sulfur.

>> ^manfromx:
So NIST is saying that there is no reason to even wonder about molten steel underneath the WTC because it's already been decided that it wasn't controlled demolition and the fires weren't hot enough to make molten steel.
Their theory for why it's there are fires burning within the pile after the collapse.
Interesting theory but that's not exactly convincing either. Seems unlikely office furniture could make molten steel after the admission that jet fuel cannot.
I sure as hell don't know exactly what happened. Some things do seem odd and I think the poster asked a decent question. If the corner was weakened why did the building fall nearly straight down and not to the side at least for a distance.
Don't see why everyone has to jump on the guy without trying to understand/learn from this.



Sulfurhexaflouride gas emitted from the burning of old office equipment containing sulfur based materials makes contact with hot steel, catalyzing the binding elements that keep the base alloys in tact (charcoal, iron, and other strengthening based additives), reducing hardened steel, into not so hardened steel, reducing its maximum heat threshold, and making jet fuel quite easy to melt the resultant material.

Down she comes.

Its a primary reason that decent office supplier manufacturers no longer use sulfur based materials...it doesnt react nicely to steel when its burned.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Most people wish to see good deeds and work rewarded and bad deeds and evil punished. That's how we roll on earth. I find it amusing that you wouldn't care about rewards versus punishment for MT and Hitler, yet you find the 'golden parachute' concept upsetting.

---
They're dead, so their eternal suffering, joy or nothingness affects only them. As far as our need to see rewards and punishments: I do not believe eternal suffering, nor eternal reward to be an aspect of justice, for it serves only the purpose of satisfying a lust, not a function. If their postmortem reward or punishment (not the idea of it, but the truthful existence of it) affected us in a positive, progressive way, only then would it be a worthwhile system of dealing with what we consider injustice. However, because it is uncertain that there is a force which doles out afterlife justice, we have no business worrying about it. We can appreciate what dead people did while they were alive, or be glad they're dead because they were a hinderance to the progress of life.

I don't disagree (ha!) with the idea of religion; I believe it serves a function, especially at our point in evolution, where we are only beginning to come to terms with these absract concepts. But religion all too often is a closed system, causing divides that need not exist. Yes, religion has done good -- let's keep that aspect; but it needs to be fluid. All philospohy of worth should be as an ocean, whether it be concerned with possible existence/nonexistence of gods or scientific understanding of our universe.
---

Yes, for most people, God serves in part as a kind of Keeper of Scorecards, but rewards and punishment may be only one aspect of an "afterlife" which technically is consciousness after this life.

You're perhaps assuming that the endgame of religion is to
follow rules now to live in a Heaven forever, which would mean
some sort of consciousness apart from a Creator. That may not
be it at all. Buddha described Nirvana as 'the end of
suffering' and left it at that. Buddhism is atheistic.

---
I'm assuming that the interpretation of the majority of mainstream religions are to live in a Heaven forever, because that is how I have encountered them with almost everyone I've ever known or known about. I'm not opposed to the idea of an afterlife, I simply find it a moot point. As the living, we should be concerned with life, not death.
---

You claim moral relativism exists, but for the atheist, does evil exist?

Which way of living demands more responsibility, the
religious person trying to follow moral precepts or someone who
doesn't necessarily care what happens because nothing finally
matters; death is the End? I don't want to live in a society
where everyone makes their own rules up as they go along; few
atheists would either.

Since for the atheist there is no Prime Mover behind what
society commonly defines as "goodness", why would an atheist
seek to enforce any kind of (self) responsibility at all? If
you felt bad about hurting someone because you didn't treat
them according to the Golden Rule, why not just kill them? If
there was no afterlife they would simply cease to exist along
with their pain and the question of right or wrong would be moot.

Yes, I'm being a tad silly, but hopefully I've made some half-assed point that, "Morality has to come from somewhere."

---
Your points are not silly at all, merely common interpretations -- and I don't mean that pejoratively. I do not believe in evil in such a rigid, unrealistic way. Evil could be considered any action which seeks or causes an end to life. But evil is not necessarily bad. Cancer kills, human dies, human returns to earth, new life begins. From "evil" comes "good". A supernova could be considered evil, but it also gives birth to new life, which is good. I believe our existence within a realm of constant destruction dictates to us the sanctity of life, and thus morality. Life is the underdog in this universe, which will become apparent (to whatever exists in this solar system) when our sun decides to stop behaving as it is now. It's not always a struggle for power, but a struggle for life itself. Yes, in a relative universe you may decide to kill your fellow man, but on a macro level you become in conflict with life, in favor of destruction. Just as truth is valued over the lie, life is favored over death for very practical, and often poetic reasons that need not stem from God.

Concepts such as "morality" exist on the human level to illustrate and teach. Ideas and concepts are not so rigid as to dictate what is always right and wrong, nor should they ever be used to represent an absolute; espcially one as silly as "evil".
---

You are perhaps basing your argument against either the
existence of God or belief in God on the idea that since
religions provide conflicting statements, all of them must therefore be
false.

Religions are not God. Religion is a human endeavor and
therefore flawed, whereas the nature (or concept) of God is
perfection.

---
God as perfection is an assumption lacking observation. The nature of God (assuming it exists) cannot possibly be determined; though I'm not in opposition to the idea of that possible explanaion, let's not kid ourselves that the idea is anything but assumed. (Assumption not necessarily being a bad thing, but also not something to base your existence on.)
---

If I say, "We are breathing air" in English and you say it in
French, is one of us 'lying?'

Also, to many atheists why is 'lying' only a feature of religion? You mean atheists never tell lies--even little ones--when it suits them?

---
Lies are available for all to use. I wouldn't dream say otherwise.
---

Faith is not logical and much of religion isn't either, but to dismiss them all out of hand seems rather absolute, in a world where "there are no absolutes".

We can all agree when out brains die, if there is nothing, we will "experience" nothing forever. If there is an afterparty, atheist and believer alike will go "somewhere" even if it's only within their own consciousness.

---
On the contrary, faith is perfectly logical. I have faith in my senses enough to walk outside on a cool, winter day and not expect to walk into lava. Unless I smell sulfur... then I'd become suspicous, maybe I'd notice the increase in heat, and my faith will change. No longer can I have complete faith that outside is a good place to go. Just as my faith in Santa Claus went to zero, and my faith in God went to near zero, based upon observation and learning.

As humanbeings, we do not have the capacity to say anything with 100% certainty, so we must be careful to organize our minds into tiers of belief/faith. (Forgive my semantics; tier is perhaps not the best word, but I'm tired right now) Your immediate senses being on the top tier, followed by recognized patterns from experience, down to intellectual knowledge from schooling, on down to some philosophical interpretations, religion, God or gods, etc. (The existence of smurfs being, obviously far down at the bottom -- much farther than God even.)

Humans are unique in that we are deeply affected by ideas; but ideas have no corporeal nature that we are aware of (yet), so we cannot let any one idea rule our lives, but rather let us rule them. We are the makers of dreams, and need not suffer otherwise -- unless Kai'ckul visits my dreams and says otherwise.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TED, Luca, Turin, hydrogen, sulfide' to 'TED, talks, Luca, Turin, smell, vibration, sulfide, sulfur, rotten eggs, coumarin, tonkene' - edited by my15minutes

Couldn't invite gorillaman. His sulfuric ejaculate would dissolve cast iron.

And thanks for the * quality, girlfriend.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
If you, rottenseed, blankfist, thinker and gorillaman all pooled together one evenin, I bet you could "come" up with enough sticky to last us all into the next millenium

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
You'll have to use your own adhesive next time, as I already sniffed my entire batch for the next 5 years. Rottenseed might be able to help you, however. He runs the Drugs channel.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Thanks for the quality and sticky love Just wondering, what adhesive is it you used this time, is it that home-made stuff you mentioned before? I'd like to grab some off of you if I may, i've a lot of stickyness in my future what with my 250!

She's tasted real power, and will thirst for more...

... therefor I predict she will become a vampire, an eternal creature of the night, lording over dreaming cities and townscapes which had once welcomed her and praised her, feasting upon the Prius drivers and the PETA members, the news reporters and librarians, unable to satiate her yearnings, unable to slay her sulfurous desires, driven by ever-present demons to commit the next unspeakable act, until the dawning of the end of times...

>> ^oblio70:
Readi-Whip gas has a similar (but less dramatic) effect.
(btw: that is called Nitrous Oxide, aka 'laughing gassss')


Yeah but dude, when you inhale ready whip, you only sound like that to yourself.