| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2008 12:41:22 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
It is a partisan issue because liberals want to control what you do and think. Professing a global warming emergency gives them massive control over our freedom of transportation, and energy use, and allows them to collect a lot of fraudulent tax money. If you don't understand that it is a political issue, and not a scientific issue, you are missing the boat. |
These days everything has a political influence from both sides. And as political agenda's are acted out our freedom's and our way of life will slowly fade. The American automobile industry has been impacted due to political agendas and your right to drive an SUV may soon disappear.
Meanwhile people who have never even taken a college level research methods or statistics course, buy into junk science as promoted by partisans with political agendas. Collectively our inability to think critically will lead to the demise of the nation that began the worldwide promotion of freedom during the past 300 years. Then what!
Merry Christmas |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 01:01:23 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
There may very well be a political/economical angle to the arguement-- hence the general shift from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. In other words, whether the earth is warming OR cooling, something must be done. Climate change is big business. |
Climate change may be big business, but the industrial status quo is even bigger business. The more fundamental argument I see going on is between those who believe we should mitigate & balance our environmental impact and those who believe humanity is just too small to have a significant impact on the global ecosystem.
I've heard pundits like Rush Limbaugh arguing that we aren't really able as a species to make such an impact, and he has openly attributed his position to his religious belief that only god could do such a thing. As I said before, it's funny listening to Rush, but it's scary too when you consider how many people take his as more than just entertainment. To all of you I have to wonder, do you believe that global nuclear warfare would change the environment? Well, we are certainly capable of changing the environment.
So, are carbon emissions a serious problem that can change the planet's atmosphere? I don't really *know* since I've only seen some of the evidence and I'm not a climate expert. Still, it makes sense to me that, even if we are not actually creating a global catastrophe, we are at least polluting our local environments and continuing our dependence on foreign oil. It makes sense on a US national security level to put resources into reducing our dependence on fossil fuels that we purchase through a cartel which has in its membership some very hostile and unstable nations. That issue in itself should be enough for any US citizen to say, "Hell yea! We need to go full speed towards alternative energy sources!" Oh and that just happens to coincide with what we would need to do to mitigate global warming concerns. Changing our energy consumption status quo should be a no-brainer for westerners regardless of your global warming stance. |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 01:32:54 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by mpeters:
There may very well be a political/economical angle to the arguement-- hence the general shift from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. In other words, whether the earth is warming OR cooling, something must be done. Climate change is big business. |
Climate change may be big business, but the industrial status quo is even bigger business. The more fundamental argument I see going on is between those who believe we should mitigate & balance our environmental impact and those who believe humanity is just too small to have a significant impact on the global ecosystem.
I've heard pundits like Rush Limbaugh arguing that we aren't really able as a species to make such an impact, and he has openly attributed his position to his religious belief that only god could do such a thing. As I said before, it's funny listening to Rush, but it's scary too when you consider how many people take his as more than just entertainment. To all of you I have to wonder, do you believe that global nuclear warfare would change the environment? Well, we are certainly capable of changing the environment.
So, are carbon emissions a serious problem that can change the planet's atmosphere? I don't really *know* since I've only seen some of the evidence and I'm not a climate expert. Still, it makes sense to me that, even if we are not actually creating a global catastrophe, we are at least polluting our local environments and continuing our dependence on foreign oil. It makes sense on a US national security level to put resources into reducing our dependence on fossil fuels that we purchase through a cartel which has in its membership some very hostile and unstable nations. That issue in itself should be enough for any US citizen to say, "Hell yea! We need to go full speed towards alternative energy sources!" Oh and that just happens to coincide with what we would need to do to mitigate global warming concerns. Changing our energy consumption status quo should be a no-brainer for westerners regardless of your global warming stance. |
No argument here-- I just dislike the rhetoric, on either side. Wise use of our resources, and a paradigm shift in how we use energy should benefit the environment.
I'm sure it's been mentioned before but Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear is an interesting read, even if it is fiction. |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 02:21:10 PM · #379 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
I'm sure it's been mentioned before but Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear is an interesting read, even if it is fiction. |
That's on my list & I hope to get to it this summer. ;) |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 03:06:03 PM · #380 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I also believe that if we don't change, we are going to kill off our planet.
|
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This is the single biggest inaccuracy/myth/lie/fallacy going.
We won't kill the planet. Not going to happen. We may kill ourselves off. We may take a whole whack of animal and plant species with us, but mother earth? No, she'll keep right on a-truckin'.
Chances are, she'll get rid of us long before we could ever even begin to dream of getting rid of her. |
You keep telling yourself that.......doesn't make it so.
What we've done to this point is a disgrace, and if you can't see fit to acknowledge that, well, shame on you. |
Ahh, I should have remembered who I was responding to and stated this much clearer, sorry Jeb. Bear_Music responded to this quite nicely, and is spot on the money. I'm not saying we shouldn't start changing the way we over-use and abuse resources and energy and the way we live our lives, I am saying that too often we're using the wrong reasons for trying to get people to wake up and see this as a problem. It is simply not the planet that is in danger here. It is us (and many of the animals and plants we 'co-exist' with) that are the ones in danger. Us. We need to smarten up because we're creating a world that is toxic to US. |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 03:23:21 PM · #381 |
I certainly question a source who's banner claims they exist to "advance the culture of free enterprise..." |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 03:33:49 PM · #382 |
dinosaurs were killed by man-made global warming!!!
|
|
|
|
12/20/2008 03:46:24 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by egamble:
dinosaurs were killed by man-made global warming!!! |
10,754 years ago. ;] |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 03:57:00 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by egamble:
dinosaurs were killed by man-made global warming!!! |
10,754 years ago. ;] |
And from your friendly neighborhood creationist museum:
|
|
|
|
12/20/2008 04:13:35 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Ahh, I should have remembered who I was responding to and stated this much clearer, sorry Jeb. Bear_Music responded to this quite nicely, and is spot on the money. I'm not saying we shouldn't start changing the way we over-use and abuse resources and energy and the way we live our lives, I am saying that too often we're using the wrong reasons for trying to get people to wake up and see this as a problem. It is simply not the planet that is in danger here. It is us (and many of the animals and plants we 'co-exist' with) that are the ones in danger. Us. We need to smarten up because we're creating a world that is toxic to US. |
Okay, I will definitely clarify what I meant in that in my lexicon, making the planet unfit for carbon-based, oxygen breathing life forms would be in my uneducated opinion, killing it.
When you look at the damage that we did in places like the Love Canal, and see that it's been remarkably well restored, yeah, there's ample evidence that the earth will just shake us off like a bad rash, but hey.......WE are that rash, and if we make it so toxic here through our behavior and indiscriminate usage of the resources that our children or grandchildren can't live here, then yeah.....a planet that will not sustain life is in my opinion, dead.
And it is undeniable that we've done a lot of damage in the last 100 years or so.
Hey, look at L.A........that's damn near uninhabitable now between riots, fires and mudslides!
|
|
|
|
12/22/2008 11:14:16 AM · #386 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
It is a partisan issue because liberals want to control what you do and think. Professing a global warming emergency gives them massive control over our freedom of transportation, and energy use, and allows them to collect a lot of fraudulent tax money. If you don't understand that it is a political issue, and not a scientific issue, you are missing the boat. |
It always amuses me when people use the "follow the money" argument and ignore the biggest profit makers.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Like K10Dguy, I get annoyed to hear people talk about "killing the planet", it's SO overstated it's ridiculous... |
It's easier to say "killing the planet" then to say "upsetting the ecosystem to the point of making the planet unfit for human habitation and life as we know it." It's just shorthand. |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 03:17:54 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Ahh, I should have remembered who I was responding to and stated this much clearer, sorry Jeb. Bear_Music responded to this quite nicely, and is spot on the money. I'm not saying we shouldn't start changing the way we over-use and abuse resources and energy and the way we live our lives, I am saying that too often we're using the wrong reasons for trying to get people to wake up and see this as a problem. It is simply not the planet that is in danger here. It is us (and many of the animals and plants we 'co-exist' with) that are the ones in danger. Us. We need to smarten up because we're creating a world that is toxic to US. |
Okay, I will definitely clarify what I meant in that in my lexicon, making the planet unfit for carbon-based, oxygen breathing life forms would be in my uneducated opinion, killing it.
When you look at the damage that we did in places like the Love Canal, and see that it's been remarkably well restored, yeah, there's ample evidence that the earth will just shake us off like a bad rash, but hey.......WE are that rash, and if we make it so toxic here through our behavior and indiscriminate usage of the resources that our children or grandchildren can't live here, then yeah.....a planet that will not sustain life is in my opinion, dead.
And it is undeniable that we've done a lot of damage in the last 100 years or so.
Hey, look at L.A........that's damn near uninhabitable now between riots, fires and mudslides! |
The planet will sustain life for many millenia after we're dead and gone. |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 03:46:10 PM · #388 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
The planet will sustain life for many millenia after we're dead and gone. |
Yes, but let's try to avoid the dead and gone part for awhile, shall we? |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 03:48:30 PM · #389 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
The planet will sustain life for many millenia after we're dead and gone. |
Yes, but let's try to avoid the dead and gone part for awhile, shall we? |
Why? The sooner we eliminate ourselves, the better for species' that give a shit ;) |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 04:08:45 PM · #390 |
THE DILEMMA
The current world wide population growth is around 1.3%. At that rate in a short amount of time (2400 years) there would be a person for every square meter of dry land. We know that would not work so a huge dilemma is placed before mankind. Everything we do good to improve life exaggerates the problem and everything we do bad improves the situation. So what do you do? |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 04:21:17 PM · #391 |
Originally posted by SDW:
THE DILEMMA
The current world wide population growth is around 1.3%. At that rate in a short amount of time (2400 years) there would be a person for every square meter of dry land. We know that would not work so a huge dilemma is placed before mankind. Everything we do good to improve life exaggerates the problem and everything we do bad improves the situation. So what do you do? |
We don't really have to do anything. Nature will find a way. It's more powerful than even we intelligent peons.
*cue disaster movie music* |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 04:22:14 PM · #392 |
Climate Change, Global Warming...let's start by practising what we are all preaching here. I am glad that all those who are 'believers' have abandoned their big cars/trucks/SUVs and given up using excessive electricity. I would love to know what powers the computers that gives them access to the internet? So, while fitting energy efficient light bulbs and turning the aircon/central heating down, they still sit in front of huge LCD screens and roast as their desktops churn away with all that speed and those external h/ds chug away merrily.
I have been around for quite a few years and spent most of my working life outside in all weather conditions. On a December day, climate change and higher temperatures would be most welcome. I am still waiting for an example of global warming. And, the utter tosh the so called experts come out with gives little credence to proving their claims. Cows make too much methane and this is causing global warming and climate change. B***sh*t!! The cow was designed by someone greater than us, with four legs at each corner, an inflated rubber glove and pumping handle at one end and two sharp pointy things at the other. Cows and their ancestors were designed to that master plan and to try to put the blame on them is crap!
Fear breeds greater fear, tell everyone they are going to die if they don't stop driving their car and most will say, oh well, if I'm going to die, I may as well drive a bigger car!
You can't reverse technology and you can't suddenly take it away from people. I commend those who say they are cutting down on products/actions that are said to be creating climate change. But in truth, these are totally wasted efforts as the major polluters are countries and their industries, not you with your bonfire of autumn leaves or ride on mowers. But, try telling the developing countries that they cannot have what we have had for years. Who here, is going to tell China and India to stop their industrial revolution??
|
|
|
|
12/22/2008 04:29:26 PM · #393 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Climate Change, Global Warming...let's start by practising what we are all preaching here. I am glad that all those who are 'believers' have abandoned their big cars/trucks/SUVs and given up using excessive electricity. I would love to know what powers the computers that gives them access to the internet? So, while fitting energy efficient light bulbs and turning the aircon/central heating down, they still sit in front of huge LCD screens and roast as their desktops churn away with all that speed and those external h/ds chug away merrily.
I have been around for quite a few years and spent most of my working life outside in all weather conditions. On a December day, climate change and higher temperatures would be most welcome. I am still waiting for an example of global warming. And, the utter tosh the so called experts come out with gives little credence to proving their claims. Cows make too much methane and this is causing global warming and climate change. B***sh*t!! The cow was designed by someone greater than us, with four legs at each corner, an inflated rubber glove and pumping handle at one end and two sharp pointy things at the other. Cows and their ancestors were designed to that master plan and to try to put the blame on them is crap!
Fear breeds greater fear, tell everyone they are going to die if they don't stop driving their car and most will say, oh well, if I'm going to die, I may as well drive a bigger car!
You can't reverse technology and you can't suddenly take it away from people. I commend those who say they are cutting down on products/actions that are said to be creating climate change. But in truth, these are totally wasted efforts as the major polluters are countries and their industries, not you with your bonfire of autumn leaves or ride on mowers. But, try telling the developing countries that they cannot have what we have had for years. Who here, is going to tell China and India to stop their industrial revolution?? |
I fail to see how this helps anything either :)
|
|
|
|
12/22/2008 04:39:56 PM · #394 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Climate Change, Global Warming...let's start by practising what we are all preaching here. I am glad that all those who are 'believers' have abandoned their big cars/trucks/SUVs and given up using excessive electricity. I would love to know what powers the computers that gives them access to the internet? So, while fitting energy efficient light bulbs and turning the aircon/central heating down, they still sit in front of huge LCD screens and roast as their desktops churn away with all that speed and those external h/ds chug away merrily.
I have been around for quite a few years and spent most of my working life outside in all weather conditions. On a December day, climate change and higher temperatures would be most welcome. I am still waiting for an example of global warming. And, the utter tosh the so called experts come out with gives little credence to proving their claims. Cows make too much methane and this is causing global warming and climate change. B***sh*t!! The cow was designed by someone greater than us, with four legs at each corner, an inflated rubber glove and pumping handle at one end and two sharp pointy things at the other. Cows and their ancestors were designed to that master plan and to try to put the blame on them is crap!
Fear breeds greater fear, tell everyone they are going to die if they don't stop driving their car and most will say, oh well, if I'm going to die, I may as well drive a bigger car!
You can't reverse technology and you can't suddenly take it away from people. I commend those who say they are cutting down on products/actions that are said to be creating climate change. But in truth, these are totally wasted efforts as the major polluters are countries and their industries, not you with your bonfire of autumn leaves or ride on mowers. But, try telling the developing countries that they cannot have what we have had for years. Who here, is going to tell China and India to stop their industrial revolution?? |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I fail to see how this helps anything either :) |
Yeah, really!
Sounded like more global warming hot air to me! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
12/22/2008 04:46:19 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Climate Change, Global Warming...let's start by practising what we are all preaching here. I am glad that all those who are 'believers' have abandoned their big cars/trucks/SUVs and given up using excessive electricity. I would love to know what powers the computers that gives them access to the internet? So, while fitting energy efficient light bulbs and turning the aircon/central heating down, they still sit in front of huge LCD screens and roast as their desktops churn away with all that speed and those external h/ds chug away merrily.
I have been around for quite a few years and spent most of my working life outside in all weather conditions. On a December day, climate change and higher temperatures would be most welcome. I am still waiting for an example of global warming. And, the utter tosh the so called experts come out with gives little credence to proving their claims. Cows make too much methane and this is causing global warming and climate change. B***sh*t!! The cow was designed by someone greater than us, with four legs at each corner, an inflated rubber glove and pumping handle at one end and two sharp pointy things at the other. Cows and their ancestors were designed to that master plan and to try to put the blame on them is crap!
Fear breeds greater fear, tell everyone they are going to die if they don't stop driving their car and most will say, oh well, if I'm going to die, I may as well drive a bigger car!
You can't reverse technology and you can't suddenly take it away from people. I commend those who say they are cutting down on products/actions that are said to be creating climate change. But in truth, these are totally wasted efforts as the major polluters are countries and their industries, not you with your bonfire of autumn leaves or ride on mowers. But, try telling the developing countries that they cannot have what we have had for years. Who here, is going to tell China and India to stop their industrial revolution?? |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I fail to see how this helps anything either :) |
Yeah, really!
Sounded like more global warming hot air to me! LOL!!! |
Exactly! That is what this whole thread is, global warming hot air! Yes there's climate change, no there isn't, yes there is...a futile waste of bandwidth and increasing climate change. |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 04:50:43 PM · #396 |
There's always the alternative I found on a website several years ago -- I can't find it now, but basically it was a 'church' whose "4 tenets" were -- commit murder, commit euthanasia, commit abortion, and finally, commit suicide.
It's "premise" was that by eliminating ourselves we would be doing "mother earth" a favor.
(It *should* go without saying, but I'll say it anyway -- I do not recommend any of the four above :)) |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 09:12:22 AM · #397 |
Saw "Everything's Cool" last night, a documentary about the politics of climate change. Man made global warming is real but the debate isn't. The "doubt" is manufactured. Industry-sponsored hacks derail the media and public attention, and create confusion where, scientifically, there is none. The fossil fuel industry doesn̢۪t care who wins or loses the debate about the reality of global warming, as long as the public continues to feel that it is debatable.
From the New York Times: In one scene, "The movie retells the appalling story of Philip Cooney, a lobbyist for the oil industry hired by the White House to head its Council on Environmental Quality, who edited and softened alarming scientific reports on climate change to make them appear ambiguous. Two days after the Times published an article about his alterations, he resigned ("to spend more time with his family") and was quickly hired by Exxon Mobil.
Message edited by author 2009-02-11 09:22:02. |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 09:42:50 AM · #398 |
Originally posted by citymars:
From the New York Times: In one scene, "The movie retells the appalling story of Philip Cooney, a lobbyist for the oil industry hired by the White House to head its Council on Environmental Quality, who edited and softened alarming scientific reports on climate change to make them appear ambiguous. Two days after the Times published an article about his alterations, he resigned ("to spend more time with his family") and was quickly hired by Exxon Mobil. |
He's a pal of Dick Cheney, no doubt?
I'm assuming there aren't many people who dissagree with the fact that there IS a global warming trend...correct? (with the exception of a few).
The main question is whether we (humans) are responsible or not and there's no way of actually knowing or pinning the blame on ourselves with certainty.
Still it would be far smarter to assume we are part of the problem and go to whatever lengths possible to help reverse the trend if we are indeed responsible. Doesn't that make sense? |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 02:37:40 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I'm assuming there aren't many people who dissagree with the fact that there IS a global warming trend...correct? (with the exception of a few).
The main question is whether we (humans) are responsible or not and there's no way of actually knowing or pinning the blame on ourselves with certainty.
Still it would be far smarter to assume we are part of the problem and go to whatever lengths possible to help reverse the trend if we are indeed responsible. Doesn't that make sense? |
"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion."
-- from Wikipedia.
How much certainty does one need? And yeah, it makes sense to accept we *are* part of the problem and to act accordingly. JMart said it very well on 12/20/2008 -- "Changing our energy consumption status quo should be a no-brainer for westerners regardless of your global warming stance." |
|
|
|
02/11/2009 02:43:38 PM · #400 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I'm assuming there aren't many people who dissagree with the fact that there IS a global warming trend...correct? (with the exception of a few).
The main question is whether we (humans) are responsible or not and there's no way of actually knowing or pinning the blame on ourselves with certainty.
Still it would be far smarter to assume we are part of the problem and go to whatever lengths possible to help reverse the trend if we are indeed responsible. Doesn't that make sense? |
"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion."
-- from Wikipedia.
How much certainty does one need? And yeah, it makes sense to accept we *are* part of the problem and to act accordingly. JMart said it very well on 12/20/2008 -- "Changing our energy consumption status quo should be a no-brainer for westerners regardless of your global warming stance." |
ROFLMAO!!!!
Wikipedia without a reference is not a "reliable" source -- anyone from anywhere can post anything about anything.
There is STILL no evidence that man made activities are the cause of significant climate change (warm or cold). There is evidence to support the cyclical nature of weather for weather's sake.
Egads... we have enough REAL crises to worry about to start fabricating these. |
|
