| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/11/2009 03:13:40 PM · #351 |
| I'll bet the ratio of car owners to dog owners on the entire planet renders those stats -- ahem -- worthless. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 03:18:41 PM · #352 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I'll bet the ratio of car owners to dog owners on the entire planet renders those stats -- ahem -- worthless. |
Jejeje� I'm not so sure you'd win that bet. There's an awful lot of dog owners that don't have vehicles. Of course, perhaps many of them *are* eating their dogs, some of them certainly are :-)
R. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 03:34:47 PM · #353 |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 03:46:56 PM · #354 |
The dog argument is just an extension of the meat argument. The Meat Industry has a huge carbon footprint.
Carbon levels are expanding out of control, regardless of whether its dogs or suvs or factories or cows, due to our population expanding out of control. We need to do something about it or something will be done for us. Mother Nature will adjust herself, and dang is it going to hurt. This means cutting back on pollution of all kinds AND efficient energy AND searching for technological fixes. But that last one we need to be really careful about. We don't want a TUMS solution, i.e., something that knocks out a symptom but meanwhile allows you to eat all kinds of crap and die of a heart attack.
What bothers me is that not all conservatives are as ignorant as they're pretending to be. Many of them are making a calculation that it's poor people who are going to get hit by climate change first (they already have been), and so they are filing it under their general philosophy of "it sucks to be poor." As well as being morally reprehensible, this is foolish arrogance. We simply don't know how bad it's going to be or who it's going to affect. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 03:57:07 PM · #355 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The dog argument is just an extension of the meat argument. The Meat Industry has a huge carbon footprint.
Carbon levels are expanding out of control, regardless of whether its dogs or suvs or factories or cows, due to our population expanding out of control. We need to do something about it or something will be done for us. Mother Nature will adjust herself, and dang is it going to hurt. This means cutting back on pollution of all kinds AND efficient energy AND searching for technological fixes. But that last one we need to be really careful about. We don't want a TUMS solution, i.e., something that knocks out a symptom but meanwhile allows you to eat all kinds of crap and die of a heart attack.
What bothers me is that not all conservatives are as ignorant as they're pretending to be. Many of them are making a calculation that it's poor people who are going to get hit by climate change first (they already have been), and so they are filing it under their general philosophy of "it sucks to be poor." As well as being morally reprehensible, this is foolish arrogance. We simply don't know how bad it's going to be or who it's going to affect. |
Well stated. For the record, I didn't post that because I'm a "conservative" who thinks we can escape the consequences of waste by shifting the argument elsewhere. I just thought it was a fascinating bit of information. And I agree with you, the meat industry is a huge problem. Sadly, however, that hasn't stopped me from eating meat :-(
R. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 05:44:43 PM · #356 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Carbon levels are expanding out of control, regardless of whether its dogs or suvs or factories or cows, due to our population expanding out of control. We need to do something about it or something will be done for us. Mother Nature will adjust herself, and dang is it going to hurt. This means cutting back on pollution of all kinds AND efficient energy AND searching for technological fixes. But that last one we need to be really careful about. We don't want a TUMS solution, i.e., something that knocks out a symptom but meanwhile allows you to eat all kinds of crap and die of a heart attack.
What bothers me is that not all conservatives are as ignorant as they're pretending to be. Many of them are making a calculation that it's poor people who are going to get hit by climate change first (they already have been), and so they are filing it under their general philosophy of "it sucks to be poor." As well as being morally reprehensible, this is foolish arrogance. We simply don't know how bad it's going to be or who it's going to affect. |
It is the conflation of these two issues that render me hopelessly cynical on the climate change issue: 1) a problem for which the solution appears to require huge societal shifts in behavior and resource use; and 2) a politically connected and socially influential group of wealthy individuals and entities who are highly motivated to resist any movement toward the types of changes that appear to be required in #1 because of the perception (real or imagined) that such change directly threatens their economic interests. Throw the whole dispensationalist factor into the cauldron (wherein environmental preservation is the devil's work and thus must be resisted by all True Believers (TM)), and things start to get to the point where building a nice, secure shack on high ground and stocking up on the ammunition and single-malt scotch starts to look almost rational.
I don't claim to be intimately familiar with the ins and outs of climate science, but I see no reason to distrust the scientific consensus that the planet is warming and that this warming is directly attributable to human actions. (Add to the scientific consensus the fact that the climate change "skeptics" are, almost to a one, crackers.) But I also am hard-pressed to imagine us taking the kinds of actions that will be needed to head off a crisis if the worst-case scenarios play out. In other words, I would really, really like to believe that the climate change theory is wrong, because I don't see us doing what we need to do if it is right. Unfortunately, the current best information seems to indicate that we're screwed. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 07:16:14 PM · #357 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
It is the conflation of these two issues that render me hopelessly cynical on the climate change issue: 1) a problem for which the solution appears to require huge societal shifts in behavior and resource use; and 2) a politically connected and socially influential group of wealthy individuals and entities who are highly motivated to resist any movement toward the types of changes that appear to be required in #1 because of the perception (real or imagined) that such change directly threatens their economic interests. Throw the whole dispensationalist factor into the cauldron (wherein environmental preservation is the devil's work and thus must be resisted by all True Believers (TM)), and things start to get to the point where building a nice, secure shack on high ground and stocking up on the ammunition and single-malt scotch starts to look almost rational.
I don't claim to be intimately familiar with the ins and outs of climate science, but I see no reason to distrust the scientific consensus that the planet is warming and that this warming is directly attributable to human actions. (Add to the scientific consensus the fact that the climate change "skeptics" are, almost to a one, crackers.) But I also am hard-pressed to imagine us taking the kinds of actions that will be needed to head off a crisis if the worst-case scenarios play out. In other words, I would really, really like to believe that the climate change theory is wrong, because I don't see us doing what we need to do if it is right. Unfortunately, the current best information seems to indicate that we're screwed. |
Seconded. Every word except "dispensationalist" (too many syllables, and I'd have to look it up). |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 11:53:31 PM · #358 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Sadly, however, that hasn't stopped me from eating meat :-(
R. |
(me neither) |
|
|
|
12/12/2009 02:12:49 AM · #359 |
.....and then there are some who blame HAARP for global warming.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2009 02:32:43 PM · #360 |
So let me get this straight. Having a dog is as bad as having a SUV. So wouldn't banning dogs have a similar effect to banning SUV's? Just a quick survey of my circle of friends and contacts and there are more dogs then SUVs. This could make a huge impact on carbon emissions! I keep hearing how SUVs and their owners are evil, why are dogs not evil, why are dog owners not made out as villains? Someone with 2-3 dogs, or god help us someone running a no kill shelter is clearly more of an impact on global warming then a SUV owner.
Also, why not ban meat as well? if their carbon footprint is huge why not just eliminate or at least restrict it. Dramatically reducing the supply to the point where ground beef is $20/pound should also have a huge impact on global warming.
And, why not limit population? After your second kid they tie the tubes. Simple and effective. Population control will solve global warming faster then anything else!
If global warming is such a huge problem why not go after the heavy hitters? Too inconvenient? You guys sound like you believe in global warming and want to do something about it, but it seems eating meat, having dogs and having kids is more important then the planet? But those damn republicans that have things that are more important to them then global warming! Shame on their SUV's and light bulbs that can dim! Shame on them for not wanting to pay more taxes so I can make babies have a dog and eat steak.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2009 03:55:41 PM · #361 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If global warming is such a huge problem why not go after the heavy hitters? Too inconvenient? |
Impractical would be the word I'd use. After all you can't just retroactively abort conservative obstructionists... Now can we? |
|
|
|
12/14/2009 09:47:32 AM · #362 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If global warming is such a huge problem why not go after the heavy hitters? Too inconvenient? |
Impractical would be the word I'd use. After all you can't just retroactively abort conservative obstructionists... Now can we? |
You could. There are words and descriptions for that activity. But many of the conservative obstructionists have guns - so outlaw those first.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2009 05:24:55 PM · #363 |
The truth about everything is that it is overwhelmingly likely we are not smart enough as a species to work out any practical answer to solving the possibility of human induced global warming. We bicker too much. We are too self-interested. We are too easily led astray and we are too unwilling to make difficult decisions.
So for those who think global warming is a hoax, don't worry. Nothing will be done. We have all made our bed and we will sleep in it. The right to say "I told you so" will only be ashes in the mouths of those currently sounding the alarm.
Whew! Achoo's in a good mood today! |
|
|
|
12/16/2009 05:30:00 PM · #364 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So for those who think global warming is a hoax, don't worry. Nothing will be done. We have all made our bed and we will sleep in it. The right to say "I told you so" will only be ashes in the mouths of those currently sounding the alarm. |
What's sad is that I think the correct quote is "My grandpa told your grandpa so ..." -- those responsible for the destruction of the habitable world as we know it are unlikely to live long enough to fully suffer the consequences of their folly. |
|
|
|
12/16/2009 05:57:02 PM · #365 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Also, why not ban meat as well?
|
Just a thought. |
|
|
|
12/17/2009 01:44:25 PM · #366 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So for those who think global warming is a hoax, don't worry. Nothing will be done. We have all made our bed and we will sleep in it. The right to say "I told you so" will only be ashes in the mouths of those currently sounding the alarm. |
What's sad is that I think the correct quote is "My grandpa told your grandpa so ..." -- those responsible for the destruction of the habitable world as we know it are unlikely to live long enough to fully suffer the consequences of their folly. |
don't be so sure.... |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 12:31:28 PM · #367 |
| Exactly how much have the seas risen due to global warming and the ice melt? Or has all the additional water increased the reletive humidity? |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 01:27:03 PM · #368 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Exactly how much have the seas risen due to global warming and the ice melt? Or has all the additional water increased the reletive humidity? |
//www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/climatechange.climatechange
According to this article, 1993 and 2006, sea levels rose by 3.3mm a year on average, while the 2001 IPCC report had predicted an annual rise of less than 2mm.
The relative unknown factor is how much impact the ice shelves melting will have where they currently reside on land - that could prompt a very large rise in sea water.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2009 03:21:43 PM · #369 |
| Thanks, do you have anything more current? |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 04:20:38 PM · #370 |
"U.S. and international assessments of climate change show that global average sea level rose approximately 1.7 millimeters per year through the twentieth century, after a period of little change during the previous two thousand years. Observations suggest that the rate of global sea-level rise may be accelerating."
"Recent data shows that waters have been rising by 3 millimetres a year since 1993."
Message edited by author 2009-12-22 16:22:25. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 06:30:43 PM · #371 |
| OK, Thanks. I'm 1142 feet above sea level at home and at my age I figure I'll be fine if I just stay here. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 07:03:14 PM · #372 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
OK, Thanks. I'm 1142 feet above sea level at home and at my age I figure I'll be fine if I just stay here. |
There are consequences of rising sea levels beyond mere beachfront boundaries, so it's foolish to think such shifts won't affect you. I'm sure your heirs would be thrilled to know how much you care for their well-being. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 07:20:28 PM · #373 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by David Ey:
OK, Thanks. I'm 1142 feet above sea level at home and at my age I figure I'll be fine if I just stay here. |
There are consequences of rising sea levels beyond mere beachfront boundaries, so it's foolish to think such shifts won't affect you. I'm sure your heirs would be thrilled to know how much you care for their well-being. |
Damn meat eaters and dog owners! |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 05:26:52 PM · #374 |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 06:43:16 PM · #375 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/27/2025 02:31:12 PM EDT.
