I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  


friendsmore friends | add your site

Extreme Humor

123 Games

Gorilla Mask

Crazy Games

Funny Games

Arcade Games

Free Samples

FreeGame Heaven

Insane Pictures

Goofy Humor

Comic World


Back to Listing

Living With Flood Waters

Hits: 5935 | Rating: (2.2) | Category: Science | Added by: fancylad
Page: 1 2 3 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 20 Posts
Saturday, June 30, 2012 11:36:25 PM
you call it devastating... i call it living on a island in earthquake prone regions... strange what a fault line can do

Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 450 Posts
Saturday, June 30, 2012 8:32:47 PM
@OldOllie - How exactly has Global Warming been debunked again?

Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 15860 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 11:59:45 PM
You want proof global warming's a hoax? Click here.

Male, 40-49, Canada
 678 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 9:41:21 PM
The Industrial Revolution is the beginning of the end for humans as we know it. Our global climate has been through thousands of massive changes, most while we were not here...certainly not as we exist today.

If you clowns at IAB can't understand that the burning of coal in the Industrial Age, and going forward in time(As we exist today), was not the beginning of our own self destruction, then stuff your heads in the sand.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT YOU IDIOTS! Who and what you want to attribute it to, is debatable in degrees.

Go back to school you idiots!

Male, 18-29, Canada
 2380 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 10:49:38 AM
this video made me think... why is it that asian store owners always wash the sidewalk outside there shop with a hose? they just sit there spraying the sidewalk!! i mean.. that's not going to get rid of gum, it just washing a little dust layer onto the street.. but they do it religiously, wasting all that water for a small amount of dirt onto the street. am i missing something? i think this is payback....

Male, 50-59, Western US
 34237 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 9:58:17 AM



Male, 30-39, Europe
 1293 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 9:42:56 AM
I wonder if HolyGod actually wants to look at anything from a credible source? Knowing what he might see I fear his head might explode.

Could you argue, HG, that someone invited to contribute to the blog of Professor Judith Curry of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology (with comments by Professor Curry) is not credible? Well considering who he considers credible, Wikipedia (ahahahahaha) and the IPCC (hohohohohoo) it is possible. Not sure he knows the meaning of the word "credible" any more than he understands the meaning of the word "science".


What if the writer was a retired atmospheric physicist and visiting professor at ANU, a world-class university and the best in Australia?

Male, 30-39, Southern US
 10253 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 9:02:16 AM

Is man contributing to climate change? Yes. Undoubtedly.

The thing is, the contribution is soooooooooooooo small, that it means nothing. So we're coming out of an ice age. The Earth warms when that happens.

You can't explain that? lol

Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 14177 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 8:40:24 AM
I'm also willing to shelter a small group of sexy Thai women if they need it!!!

Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 14177 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 8:36:51 AM
Here the problem with global warming/ How can it be making sea levels rise by melting the ice caps? Water and ice take up the same amount of space take a cup of water and put ice in it so the waters up to the top then let it melt notice it dosen't overflow!

Male, 30-39, Europe
 1293 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 7:36:28 AM
If the science is so sound, then why the dishonesty?

I can name half a dozen incidences of serious but not actionable dishonesty on the part of climate "scientists" or their advocates off the top of my head. I can also name several incidences of apparent fraud in climate "science", most of which we will never confirm because it is not science at all (see note). All this in those uncorrupted by hundreds of billions of dollars of funding.

I cannot think of a single incident of dishonesty among sceptics, who are apparently corrupted by $100k of funding.

NB: science is reproducible; if it is not reproducible it is not science; if the data and methodology are not published the work is not reproducible; most climate scientists don't include their data and method (which would have got me a failing grade in a first year (sixth-grade to Americans) science practical write-up) and refuse to release them or even talk about them when asked.

Male, 13-17, Europe
 98 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 7:29:05 AM
Can we stop arguing for just one post and appreciate just what these people put up with?

Male, 40-49, Asia
 13786 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 7:15:23 AM
And that is why BJs are so cheap there.

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28549 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 4:36:29 AM
@HolyGod: The "year without a summer" is evidence that there are WAY more powerful forces in climate variation than us pathetic humans, ok?
@randomxnp's Linky
Is an irrifutable demonstration of just how WRONG CAGW "science" is: it's nothing short of junk.

2001? @HG that's 11 years ago and the HIEGHT of the AGW scare! Ever since then things have been DIS-proven one after the other.

@Mechi totally 'gets it'! The world HAS been warming, since the end of the last Ice Age! Are humans responsible for that too? LOLZ! Actually the "Little Ice Age" is more accurate, but both are true.

The Earth gets warmer, the Earth gets colder: DUH!

Male, 18-29, Asia
 134 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 3:33:19 AM
Also, gobal warming is in the idea real but not to the degree that its described or understood. Like tsiemens said its ludicrous. The CRU link shows that eight committees governed the email controversy themselves and not by Non-Bias organizations. The fact that nothing has changed other then the natural cycle of the earth, proves that the only reason they exists is to get easy money.

Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17367 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 3:32:40 AM
HG: "Please link to one credible source. One. Please.", "To one nationally ranked scientist that says Global Warming is a hoax. Just one. I don't even want a consensus. Just one reputable source."

Dr Roy Spencer Lengthy and science laden content, but you wanted a real scientist.

I have other links as well, but you wanted just one, so I linked to one of the best.

Male, 18-29, Asia
 134 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 3:05:45 AM
Climatic Research Unit email controversy
I know most of these people don't enjoy living like this but it does look fun.

Male, 30-39, Canada
 517 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 2:46:56 AM
They've been crying global warming for years, its ludicrous, I remember how when I was in grade school in the 80s they said in 5 to 10 years the earth would be in massive danger. Watch out the sky is falling! Turns out the earth goes through natural cooling and warming processes and volcanos put out far more c02 than we do in a year anyway. Here's the other kicker - carbon is the building block of life, it doesn't need a tax!

Male, 30-39, Europe
 1293 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 2:23:41 AM
It is funny though, that when I point you to graphs from reliable sources (those are all from papers that have not been seriously challenged) that prove absolutely in three different ways that the models showing CAGW are wrong, you ignore that and resort to fallacy.

First you use the ad hominem fallacy; the site on which my internet search found the graphs I wanted happens to be one other people don't like, so the graphs can be safely ignored.

Then the appeal to authority, the IPCC. The fact that the authority is comically lacking in any legitimate authority, and the fact that it was set up with a specifically anti-scientific aim does not enter into your argument. Science be damned, this is the UN!

Male, 30-39, Europe
 1293 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 2:16:17 AM
So yes, you listen to journalists and politicians. If you listened to scientists, or knew anything about science, you would know that the IPCC reports have nothing to do with science and little to do with scientists.

Male, 30-39, Europe
 1293 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 2:14:54 AM
I have read further and see where your error comes in. You actually think that the IPCC contains thousands of scientists! You really are funny. You think you actually know about this subject, then come up with things like that!

You appear not to know that the IPCC is loaded with activists, or that the few scientists involved (certainly not thousands, as there were only a couple of thousand involved in writing each report, and many were not scientists) are mostly very junior (some without even holding PhDs) or not working in their own field; or that some are clueless, even admit being out of their depth having been chosen to represent their country, race or gender due to bizarre diversity policies.

You clearly don't know that much of the IPCC report was based on material from activist groups not on science, or that many experts disagreed with the conclusions.

Most critically you don't know that the IPCC was set up only to prove CAGW.

Male, 30-39, Europe
 1293 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 2:07:31 AM

What makes you think that an organisation is better support than a large number of individuals? There are various reasons that a number of individuals tend to make better judgement calls than an organisation formed of a similar number of people*. Then there is the fact that an organisational opinion hides the fact that many in that organisation, possibly a majority, disagrees with the opinion held up as the organisation's opinion.

So how about the 30,000 scientists who signed a letter saying that CAGW was a load of unscientific nonsense? They were not an organisation, but that gives them more credibility and means that they all agreed with the letter.

* examples include risky shift and the fact that the organisation is led by people in position due to political ability and desire rather than knowledge or skill

Male, 30-39, Europe
 1293 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 2:02:02 AM

That you link to a Wikipedia page on an IPCC report shows you know nothing about either Wikipedia or the IPCC. Both are completely discredited on the issue of CAGW.

Male, 30-39, Europe
 1293 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 2:00:03 AM

"I provided you a multinational organization made up of thousands of participating scientists who say global warming is happening and is being affected by human activity. "

Did you? What organisation? What thousands of scientists?

Male, 30-39, Western US
 5561 Posts
Friday, June 29, 2012 1:57:32 AM

"The headline findings of the report were: "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", and "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Page: 1 2 3 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account

Back to Listing ^top

Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |