| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2004 11:59:05 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
"Id like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that your not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet."
-Agent Smith "The Matrix" |
Ditto
but there is more......
Morpheus: What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.
I need to see those movies again, so much more than just hollywood film. |
SO TRUE, the 1st one is the best though. Another relevant/accurate quote from Agent Smith:
"Have you ever stood and stared at it? Marveled at its beauty? Its genius... billions of people just living out their lives... Oblivious."
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 00:00:00. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:07:09 AM · #77 |
What are you talking about, GF? Conservatives don't make political drives? Republican politicians get more money, lots more than democrats, from corporations, PACs and special interest groups to further their aims and goals. They benefit directly from the politicians of this country because of their ability to make their issues political ones by buying their political access. eg...Enron did that with both Bill Clinton and George Bush. It's all political, my friend, it's just that the conservatives speak with dollars, and the rest of us speak with our hearts.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Me, my fortune, I am, I enjoy, I live, Lo love, I'm loved, I'm liked, I play, I'm happy... and I don't care what I destroy in the mean time and what I leave for the future generatins... A really valuable lesson, thank you. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My friends: A conservative cares about the environment, we care about poverty and human suffereing..however, we do not go about making this academic and most basic points a political drive. You continue to miss the point because you attest to be a better person then those that do not ahgree with your fever. Get off the superiority bag and you will notice that your life will be better when you stop telling people what to do because you know better. Think about it. |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 05:03:20 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Me, my fortune, I am, I enjoy, I live, Lo love, I'm loved, I'm liked, I play, I'm happy... and I don't care what I destroy in the mean time and what I leave for the future generatins... A really valuable lesson, thank you. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My friends: A conservative cares about the environment, we care about poverty and human suffereing..however, we do not go about making this academic and most basic points a political drive. You continue to miss the point because you attest to be a better person then those that do not ahgree with your fever. Get off the superiority bag and you will notice that your life will be better when you stop telling people what to do because you know better. Think about it. |
I'm not doing any academic points here, and no I don't think I know better, and I don't belive those scientists anymore than you do. I think they are all trying to misslead us in some way and yes I agree most of the times they are way overreacting. Instead I'm just asking some questions like: What if we could be just a little bit more careful with what we destroy while we enjoy our lifes, and what we leave to our future generations. I mean to me where I live winter is not winter like it used to be summer is not summer as it used to be it is obvious something is going on with the enviroment, and I can see it with my own eyes I don't need any scientist to tell me. Do you really think it is worth it that we consume this plannet 10 times more than we normaly would require and throw in the air tons and tons of polution every day just so we can have corporations? Just so a few people can have more money than they will ever need? Ask yourself why would a man need to have a billion dollars in his life? Why does a man need so much? And then ask yourself how many multibilionaires are there? I don't feel superior just by asking this, and I'm not even sure if anything must or can be done about it, it's a simple questions that worth discussing...
Personally I think that future generatios who will be more andvanced and more carefull with these things will hate us for what we do today, for them we will be a black spot on this plannet's history.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:19:33 AM · #79 |
Ran across this column this morning.
Global Warming...Junk Science |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:04:03 AM · #80 |
Rather than finding ways to debunk evidence suggesting global warming, why can't people assume that pumping billions of polutants into the atmosphere will have a negative effect, regardless of the, not insubstantial facts and figures?
It amazes me that people are willing to wait til the planet's broken so that only then we should try and fix it (at much more cost to all). Blind, self-interested fools. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 11:13:45 AM · #81 |
The author of that Fox News article (and we know just how unbiased Fox can be :), is Steven Milloy, a well known front man, hack, lobbyist and spinmeister for various polluting industries. Some of his clients have been Monsanto, The American Petroleum Institute, the tobacco industry and The International Food Additives Council, to name but a few. There are numerous questions regarding his web sites, affiliations and organization. He is also a scholar at the Cato Institute, a very conservative think tank.
You can read about him Here.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:21:11 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Rather than finding ways to debunk evidence suggesting global warming, why can't people assume that pumping billions of polutants into the atmosphere will have a negative effect, regardless of the, not insubstantial facts and figures?
It amazes me that people are willing to wait til the planet's broken so that only then we should try and fix it (at much more cost to all). Blind, self-interested fools. |
So true, but I'd call it blind stupidity reather than self interest. For anyone with brains one of the main "self-interests" should be the air he breathes and the planet he stands on.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 12:54:33 PM · #83 |
It is warming in the short run, the question is, is it warming due to people's action, or a natural trend? Remember -- the earth do have a cycle of warming and cooling by itself. Humans weren't around to pollute to cause the last ice age, you know....
(just because you see a rise of temperature on a SINE WAVE, doesn't mean it's not on a cycle. The fact is, the data is inconclusive and does not contain enough data to produce an overall trend).
This argument on global warming reminds me of the story about the blind men and the elephant.... one guy thinks he's holding on to a post, the other one thinks he's holding a rope, yet another guy thinks he's holding on a pair of sharp stones. None of them got the overall message.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I think Ron just likes to argue for arguments sake. I mean, who in their right mind would think that global warming is a myth that is being put together in some sort of global scientific conspiracy?
"Here at Exxon, we help Jesus walk on water" |
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 12:58:23.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 01:59:34 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
It amazes me that people are willing to wait til the planet's broken so that only then we should try and fix it (at much more cost to all). Blind, self-interested fools. |
It is built into our economic and global civilizations systems, our current frame work of thinking, to maximize wealth as fast as possible. Instant gratification is the way of our civilizations, our economic structure.
It’s the frame work of thinking that we need to change. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 02:18:14 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Imagineer:
It amazes me that people are willing to wait til the planet's broken so that only then we should try and fix it (at much more cost to all). Blind, self-interested fools. |
It is built into our economic and global civilizations systems, our current frame work of thinking, to maximize wealth as fast as possible. Instant gratification is the way of our civilizations, our economic structure.
It’s the frame work of thinking that we need to change. |
Should we then all go back to photography using only FILM and avoid the instant gratification that digital offers? How about going back to the horse and buggy to avoid the instant gratification that the automible offers - and how about going back to the library to avoid the instant gratification that the internet offers
Or, perhaps, would you be SELECTIVE in which things we should avoid?
Or, perhaps, you would admit that you are among those who enjoy availing yourself of those things that offer instant gratification along with the rest of us? |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 02:59:41 PM · #86 |
It is not about going back to stone age, it is about the fact that we consume and destroy 10 times more than we need to just so a few guys can be multi-bilionairs and so corporations can exist. Nobody will ever eradicate polution but we could enforce a bit more anti-polution. I think this is what it's all about. Nothing radical just force corporations to take enviromental friendly measures will be the best.
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 15:02:25.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 03:59:09 PM · #87 |
Yes, Ron it is exatly about being selective.
As far as we know using digital cameras and the internet isn't destroying the environment. And with regards to automobiles, why can't we aggressively pursue alternative fuel sources. Or, and this is radical so hold to your socks, improve public transportation which would cut down of gas consumption, pollution, traffic and save people money. I take the bus to work every day and it saves me well over 2000 dollars a year in parking and gas but yes it requires a little more patience while I wait at the bus stop. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 04:07:23 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by kevinf:
Yes, Ron it is exatly about being selective.
As far as we know using digital cameras and the internet isn't destroying the environment. And with regards to automobiles, why can't we aggressively pursue alternative fuel sources. Or, and this is radical so hold to your socks, improve public transportation which would cut down of gas consumption, pollution, traffic and save people money. I take the bus to work every day and it saves me well over 2000 dollars a year in parking and gas but yes it requires a little more patience while I wait at the bus stop. |
True.
Again, not black and white. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 04:40:06 PM · #89 |
With the oil and gas and coal companies contributing so much money to the republicans and the Bush campaigns in both 2000 and 2004 elections it's no wonder that Bush is not pushing for any meaningful changes in energy consumption and technology. Where is the legislation to start building the infrastructure for hydrogen based energy applications? where is the legislation to require the automobile companies to meet strict emission standards? Bush and Cheney are both oil men and come from oil companies. This does not mean that we need to abandon oil completely and immediately, but allow for other alternative energy means to be included in the picture, such as wind and solar.
Energy policy changes, as well as, more meaningful campaign finance reform need to take place so that our government is not so swayed by the corporate dollar.
Graph |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 04:42:21 PM · #90 |
Kevin,
You're dead wrong.
Semiconductor companies are the highest polluters of water out there. computer chips, etc. are manufactured with deadly compounds like arsenic, CHLORINE GAS, etc. Think it doesn't pollute? Think again. Ok, it's not in the air, it doesn't affect the ozone until you drink the water.
The fact is, most factories pollute one way or the other. No other way around it if you want to live in the 21st century. Cellphones polluate as well, LCD screen is manufactured similar to semiconductors.
Tony
Originally posted by kevinf:
Yes, Ron it is exatly about being selective.
As far as we know using digital cameras and the internet isn't destroying the environment. And with regards to automobiles, why can't we aggressively pursue alternative fuel sources. Or, and this is radical so hold to your socks, improve public transportation which would cut down of gas consumption, pollution, traffic and save people money. I take the bus to work every day and it saves me well over 2000 dollars a year in parking and gas but yes it requires a little more patience while I wait at the bus stop. |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 04:49:59 PM · #91 |
| How am I dead wrong with a statement that using a digital camera or the internet isn't destroying the environment? The examples you gave are related to manufacturing them. Read a little closer next time because I was very specific in my choice of wording. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 04:59:30 PM · #92 |
I agree with you that all industries pollute, some more than others, but there are measures that we can all take, both companies and individuals that can greatly reduce our negative effect on the earth and ozone. The way we are heading now we are not going to be leaving a very habitable planet for our progeny to inhabit. We do need to be heading towards a more natural way of doing things. For instance, conservation measure of recycling and technological advances in production capabilities need to be developed. Also, there are measures right now that industry needs to adopt to stop polluting at the great rates they are, but they don't want to because it cuts into their big profits. It's all about greed.
Originally posted by paganini:
Kevin,
You're dead wrong.
Semiconductor companies are the highest polluters of water out there. computer chips, etc. are manufactured with deadly compounds like arsenic, CHLORINE GAS, etc. Think it doesn't pollute? Think again. Ok, it's not in the air, it doesn't affect the ozone until you drink the water.
The fact is, most factories pollute one way or the other. No other way around it if you want to live in the 21st century. Cellphones polluate as well, LCD screen is manufactured similar to semiconductors.
Tony
Originally posted by kevinf:
Yes, Ron it is exatly about being selective.
As far as we know using digital cameras and the internet isn't destroying the environment. And with regards to automobiles, why can't we aggressively pursue alternative fuel sources. Or, and this is radical so hold to your socks, improve public transportation which would cut down of gas consumption, pollution, traffic and save people money. I take the bus to work every day and it saves me well over 2000 dollars a year in parking and gas but yes it requires a little more patience while I wait at the bus stop. |
|
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 17:00:32. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 06:00:50 PM · #93 |
Some industry's have already taken it upon themselves to start the needed change.
//www.interfacesustainability.com/
""I stand convicted by me myself alone not by anyone else as a plunderer of the earth; but not by our civilizations definition. By our civilizations definition im a captain of industry, in the eyes of many a kind of modern day hero but really really… The first industrial revolution is flawed, it is not working, it is unsustainable, it is the mistake; and we must move on to another and better industrial revolution and get it right this time.""
Ray Anderson, CEO Interface, world’s largest commercial carpet manufacturer. Addressing civic and business leaders, North Carolina State University 1999 |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 06:16:47 PM · #94 |
Northern Siberia is just about the coldest spot on the earth. Yet this was not always so. This area was never covered by ice in the ice age. There was life here and plants that are no longer present. But ponder on the following: in 1799 frozen bodies of mammoths were found. Sledge dogs were eager to eat this flesh unharmed. But wait: the big point here is that these creatures were frozen while eating because the plant food was still in their mouth!
This is a very big implication which we can not gloss over. This flies in the face of the Darwin model where changes occur slowly over time. We all know that when an animal dies putrefaction begins shortly after. These animals did not have the chance to finish their eating, let alone rotting away. They were suddeny frozen.
Now look at the formation of the Himalaya mountains. Examine the area and you will conclude from its marine fossils that these mointains were once under the sea. They are currently going through another change.
The point being made is not a point being taught in schools because to teach the truth: that the earth is subject to cataclysm from many different internal and external directions, would debunk the crap the schools are now teaching.
Let me illustrate this further: as you all who are interested in mother earth know, the earth consist of a stony shell: the lithosphere which consists of igneous rock, like granite and basalt. This is then covered with sedimentary rock whis is deposited by water. With the propagation of seismic waves we estimate about a 2000 mile thick layer. Of course, on the basis of the gravitational effect of mountain masses as per the theory of isostasy, this brings the shell to be only about 60 miles thick. What is important here is that the deep strata of igneous rock contain no sign of fossils life. Incased in the sedimentary rock are skeletons of marine and land animals. Not infrequently igneous rock has shot up right through the sedimentary even to the point of assuming the upper position.
Why all the above: consider what we have here. We have unresolved activity which may originate for the core of the earth. We have proof that sudden changes of temparature have taken place without warning which have frozen animals while eating. A place where there was once vegatation is now under ice and this place was never subjected to the ice age.
We know that our atmosphere is subjected to pleasant and destructive changes. Something has suddenly frozen or local weather conditions change from cold to warm.
Please show me the posters that the environmental wackos would have displayed prior to the freezing of Siberia and before continents sank and rose.
The earth is subject to many variables which include its varying distance on its orbit around the sun. The gallaxy is also hurling through space and the entire structure is subject to wobles which affect not only the terrestial axis, which is reponsible for your seasonal changes, but disturbance from other gravitational forces which include all the bodies in the design of this little piece of the universe.
The above does not guarantee you a fixed weather pattern nor the possibility of upheavels which may bring unclement weather to any part. Everything is subject to affect the entire picture. A decrease in carbon dioxide will have a detrimental effect. There is cause and effect of which we have no say so whatsoever.
This brings us to earth warming. Look at the facts and even if you are not a scientist where is the proof that any is taking place as a result of your actions? A sudden dispension of solar hot spots will have another adverse effect. What I am saying is that the picture is too big to be grasped by any generation. These cycles of upheavels are part of the mystery in the fabric of the universe. The time lines go so far back and what is human recording as of now? A mere two thousand years. Do you know how tiny a number this is in the face of our origin and that of the clay of the earth and the universe? It is not enough for anyone who wishes to uphold his credibility into the history books. There is no sufficient data to form an intelligent decision and only those with an agenda will find it in themselves to be disingenuous because they know they are addressing an ignorant audience.
To believe that we are the cause does not explain the infamous ice ages. The above mentioned sudden freezing nor the very igneous rock shooting past the outer layer. The rising and falling continents.
Like I said earlier, the concerned scientist are addressing idiots because what they espouse is false and if they believe the trash they are selling then they are either misguided or soldiers of the wacky left. If you lived in old Siberia and these scientist told you that were causing the eminent freezing spell coming because you used fire to eat you may have believed him. Is it not funny or what.
The question is why is this being done. It is a simple political ploy at the heart of liberalism. It wants to take the issue of the salvation of the planet on to themselves. But look at them, what can do except play on your emotions. They are selling you the Brooklyn Bridge. Oh, how nice to associate myself with a caring political side that like Superman is going to save the world. I do not know which one to pity more the scientist or the subject they are selling this bridge to.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 06:24:54 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
here's an article by a little Loony Leftist publication called The New York Times ... |
Ah, glad to see you've finally seen the light! ;) |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 07:02:34 PM · #96 |
Because you contribute to the destruction of environment by BUYING and SUPPORTING these companies that pollute :)
The truth is, everything pollutes. If you use energy at all, you're a polluter. You can't get away from that. No one can.
However, to blame the rise of carbon dioxide to the direct warming of the earth based on that factor alone is just plain silly. As someone pointed out, volcanoes that erupt do far more harm to the air than all the cars combined. And volcanoes that blew have a tendency to COOL the earth down. It's just nature -- we have the warm season and the cold (ice age) season. It was there before man starts to seriously pollute the environment. You can't blame the rise of 4 degrees in the artic based on what people ALONE has done in this century. If you ban all the fossil fuel, all the green house gases, the temperature will still rise 3.9999999 degrees :^) Ok, so we're contributing a little but it's pretty small in the grand scheme of things.
If you're talking about CFC's effects on the ozone layer, that's one thing (granted - the data on ozone and finding out a hole in the artic region is also very recent, only the past 30 years, and there is no proof that the hole wasn't there already in the 1500's. But CFC at least have a direct correlation to the destruction of the ozone layer), but global warming is much more than just what the humans are doing.
Originally posted by kevinf:
How am I dead wrong with a statement that using a digital camera or the internet isn't destroying the environment? The examples you gave are related to manufacturing them. Read a little closer next time because I was very specific in my choice of wording. |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 07:06:13 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by kevinf:
How am I dead wrong with a statement that using a digital camera or the internet isn't destroying the environment? The examples you gave are related to manufacturing them. Read a little closer next time because I was very specific in my choice of wording. |
You can't use them if they haven't been manufactured. Using them required the manufacturing process to have taken place. Never mind the fossil fuels burned to transport them. And, all those electrons that coursing throug them don't just appear out of thin air - more fossil fuels being burnt there. Of course, the batteries for your camera not only take electricty to recharge (I assume you're recharging) contain some pretty toxic materials.
Nobody's hands are clean, and especially not when you're taking part in today's consumer economy. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 07:19:50 PM · #98 |
OK, the Kyoto Treaty has been batted around in this thread by both opponents and proponents. Proponents seem to basically agree that it may have a limited impact, but that its a good first step. Opponents primarily point to the lopsided nature of the restrictions, and the fact that three of the top ten polluters are exempt.
I have a question of the proponents (not that anyone here has the power - just for discussion): Why not go back and redraft the treaty so that all countries are bound by it equally? You would wipe out the primary objection that most people have to it, and would probably get more widespread support for it in the US.
I would assert this is unacceptable to many of the drafters of the treaty, because it would not adequately punish the US for its economic success. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 07:56:01 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
OK, the Kyoto Treaty has been batted around in this thread by both opponents and proponents. Proponents seem to basically agree that it may have a limited impact, but that its a good first step. Opponents primarily point to the lopsided nature of the restrictions, and the fact that three of the top ten polluters are exempt.
I have a question of the proponents (not that anyone here has the power - just for discussion): Why not go back and redraft the treaty so that all countries are bound by it equally? You would wipe out the primary objection that most people have to it, and would probably get more widespread support for it in the US.
I would assert this is unacceptable to many of the drafters of the treaty, because it would not adequately punish the US for its economic success. |
I agree with you here. I think Bush is missing a good chance here; he could tell the UN and the other Kyoto proponents "OK, remove the exemptions for China, India, and Brazil, and I will then present the treaty to our Senate for approval". Bear in mind, however, that Bush cannot approve the treaty by himself; it must be ratified by the Senate. Since the Senate rejected it 96-0 4 or 5 years ago, it is highly questionable whether it would get the 60 votes needed for approval today even with Bush's reccomendation (although elimination of the ridiculous above-mentioned exemptions certainly would help). |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 08:39:05 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Should we then all go back to photography using only FILM and avoid the instant gratification that digital offers? How about going back to the horse and buggy to avoid the instant gratification that the automible offers - and how about going back to the library to avoid the instant gratification that the internet offers
Or, perhaps, would you be SELECTIVE in which things we should avoid?
Or, perhaps, you would admit that you are among those who enjoy availing yourself of those things that offer instant gratification along with the rest of us? |
I don't maintain that I'm a perfect in my intentions to salvage. recycle and limit my excesses (I am a Westerner after all) BUT - I try, I'm conscious and do make some effort. It's the defeatist 'can't make a difference' perception that pisses me off. Everyone has double standards to some extent but if we at least do a small thing, or a few small things, to assist the healing then we're better off than we were before.
Some, it seems, are quite happy to reel off facts about how there's no proof of a problem, or that it doesn't have much impact, but it's a form of deflection in my view.
One more thing - I'm sure that some people dismiss these threads as politics, extremism, etc. However, I consider myself fairly 'average' with no wild views, no crazy political slant and no nutty, overtly 'green' bias - I just wish more people wouldn't get so judgemental on some serious comment on important issues.
: )
|
|
