Guys, its clear that neither of you have much idea what you are talking about. So here are some facts for you.
The concept of global warming is concerned with an increase in the temperature of the earth's surface (hence the term warming) and the asscociated effects that that temperature increase has on our climate. To whoever tried to tell me that its not about temperature, you are dead wrong.
It has nothing at all to do with tsunamis, eathquakes, acid rain, oils spills in the ocean or the hole in the ozone layer.
Global warming is happening. That is not a matter for debate. It is being measured, and it is very very real. Even Bush admits this. The causes of the warming are what is being debated. It may be anthropogenic, or it may be natural. The evidence suggests that it could well be anthropogenic.
Yes the eath has warmed before, many times. It has also cooled. These cycles of warming and cooling are due to factors including eccentricities in our orbit around the sun, the tectonic drift of continents and consequent effects on ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, and greenhouse gas concentrations. The increase in temperature over the last 50 years or so has occurred too rapidly to be due to tectonic changes. We can predict the effects of orbital eccentricities, and this warming doesn't fit that pattern. There have been no volcanic eruptions of sufficient size to cause this effect, that leaves greehouse gases as the most likely culprit. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. There is a clear relationship between the temperature of the earth's surface and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
By burning fossil fuels, humans are generating CO2 at rate which will soon see the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere surpass any level in the past 400,000 years.
Those are the facts.
Now, to return to the point. Why does Sen. Inhofe feel that the whole story has been concocted in order to get the US to redistribute its wealth amongst the rest of the world, and how would the UN stand to gain from such a redistribution? I'm no economist, so I can't begin to fathom where he's coming from on this one.
There is an enviromentalist movement and you can't stop it.
At what point would we be treating the earth with the respect it deserves? I mean, humans HAVE to so SOME damage to it just to live and survive, so who's to say what is acceptable and what is not? Should we tear down all large cities and towns and let them go back to nature?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I've read the book. So have two of my friends. It's interesting and a good read. It did not sway my opinion on the matter. It did not prove global warming exist. And I love Yield. And if these issues inspired it, then I'm glad Ed and the guys believe what they do. It made them a lot of money.
At the end of the day, they as well as you, can not prove global warming exist. Do we do things that we shouldn't do such as dumping nuclear waste, dumping oil etc... Sure. Does this cause hurricanes? Prove it.
Has anyone proven God exist? No.
You do realize that truths and and natural laws exist independent of proof, don't you? I'm not referring to responsiblity to act, but just the basic fact that truth is independent of proof.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
At what point would we be treating the earth with the respect it deserves? I mean, humans HAVE to so SOME damage to it just to live and survive, so who's to say what is acceptable and what is not? Should we tear down all large cities and towns and let them go back to nature?
Do you propose that we don't do what we can to take responsibility for our actions and how we affect our environment?
There is a very big difference between living/surviving and with setting up and supporting systems that encourage and perpetuate dramatically negatively affecting our environment and our lives for a profit.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Do you propose that we don't do what we can to take responsibility for our actions and how we affect our environment?
There is a very big difference between living/surviving and with setting up and supporting systems that encourage and perpetuate dramatically negatively affecting our environment and our lives for a profit.
I'm not proposing anything. I'm asking a question. Someone early in the thread said we need to start treating the earth with the respect it deserves. I'm asking that, since it's impossible not to do some damage to it, what is an acceptable level.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm not proposing anything. I'm asking a question. Someone early in the thread said we need to start treating the earth with the respect it deserves. I'm asking that, since it's impossible not to do some damage to it, what is an acceptable level.
It isn't a quantifiable variable. Just try to minimize your impact. Simple living "destroys" the enviornment, but that is normal. Just don't take it to the nth degree. Every bit helps.
It isn't a quantifiable variable. Just try to minimize your impact. Simple living "destroys" the enviornment, but that is normal. Just don't take it to the nth degree. Every bit helps.
Then let's raze New York city and let it go back to nature.
...and let's all go live in tents.
Isn't that minimizing our impact?
You can't tell me that if you are living in a permanent structure you have truly minimized your impact.
(i.e. it's so subjective to talk about minimizing impact. I'd wager it could be successfully argued that YOU aren't minimizing your impact)
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Then let's raze New York city and let it go back to nature.
...and let's all go live in tents.
Isn't that minimizing our impact?
You can't tell me that if you are living in a permanent structure you have truly minimized your impact.
(i.e. it's so subjective to talk about minimizing impact. I'd wager it could be successfully argued that YOU aren't minimizing your impact)
Yes, living in a tent is minimalizing your impact. It also is not realistic. Progress, technology, cities are a reality and necessary for evolution and moving forward. But again, they don't have to be as damaging as we currently allow them to be. Tighter EPA standards on pollution emission for companies, recycling, driving a hybrid rather than a fucking Tahoe, and so on minimize the negative impact of moving forward. It certainly can't hurt.
As far as that last line, I certainly can be doing better, everybody can, and that is the point. Also, I know it is subjective, that is why I said it was unquantifiable.
"First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky."
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
"First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky."
We went down this road earlier. This is not something that can be explained by simple 'if x occurs, Y will happen'.
" Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved," OK, so if you can't prove it, even though it is obvious, it isn't true. I will say the same thing I said earlier, try this experiment regarding human attribution: go in your garage, turn on your car, close the garage door, and roll down the windows. After 15 minutes (and after you cough up shit til you puke, wipe your burning eyes, and take 4 advil for the headache) start contemplating the fact that there are millions of cars pumping that shit in the air. On top of the factories belching shit, landfills, toxic waste, and natural water dumping. And there HAS been 'perpetual repetition of this for the last 150 years. I'm not 'promoting visions of disaster', just cancer clusters, higher incidences of weather anomolies, and just some generally fucked shit. If you don't think we are fucking anything up, you are insane, in total denial, or completely self-absorbed. Just try to be better about this shit. It isn't going to impact you tremendously, but over time, your off-spring will pay the price.
If you guys want to see something funny go to this geeks myspace page. He works for his daddy and is a total frat guy. Listen up kid you are an idiot just deal with it.
Yes, living in a tent is minimalizing your impact. It also is not realistic. Progress, technology, cities are a reality and necessary for evolution and moving forward. But again, they don't have to be as damaging as we currently allow them to be. Tighter EPA standards on pollution emission for companies, recycling, driving a hybrid rather than a fucking Tahoe, and so on minimize the negative impact of moving forward. It certainly can't hurt.
As far as that last line, I certainly can be doing better, everybody can, and that is the point. Also, I know it is subjective, that is why I said it was unquantifiable.
So the answer is that we do not know what level we need to be living at, just that it (supposedly) needs to be better than we're doing now?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So the answer is that we do not know what level we need to be living at, just that it (supposedly) needs to be better than we're doing now?
I think it would be a good idea that we start looking at our personal responsibility to our surroundings. For most people I know, just considering their impact on their environment is a big step. We might begin to realize how we sometimes treat our environment as an objective backdrop to our lives. Some of us are often oblivious to the consequences of taking so much from life, and loading our very life-sphere up with toxins. This is the very sphere of existence that supports our own lives, and yet we seem to live as though we are unconnected to this "backdrop". The biosphere is not just around us, it actually is in us too! We are of life. We are life. If we each personally considered this we might come to decide for ourselves some common sense personalized changes that can easily emerge.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
To figure out how the digestive systems break down food and utilize the nutrients in it for energy. I thought this could replace fossil fuels.
Then I remembered that biological waste releases greenhouse gases, namely CO2 and Methane. So, that's not really any better.
Then I thought, well if we just walk everywhere instead of driving, we use more energy, consume more food and excrete more biological waste, releasing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
To figure out how the digestive systems break down food and utilize the nutrients in it for energy. I thought this could replace fossil fuels.
Then I remembered that biological waste releases greenhouse gases, namely CO2 and Methane. So, that's not really any better.
Then I thought, well if we just walk everywhere instead of driving, we use more energy, consume more food and excrete more biological waste, releasing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Hmm, that argument sucks. Here's some reasons why:
The way we break down carbon compounds to release energy is essentially the same as combustion, so it does produce CO2. But, think about it, if you drive to work every day you're not only moving yourself, you're moving one or two tons of steel as well. You have to burn enough fuel to provide the energy to move all that steel, as well as yourself.
The food we eat comes from plants, or from animals which were fed on plants. When you grow a plant you use CO2 (ie remove it from the atmosphere). Then when you eat the food that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere, the net change in C02 concentration in the atmosphere is zero (obviously this is oversimplified, but you get the idea). When you dig up coal or oil you don't remove any CO2, in fact, you actually relase large quantities just in the process of digging up the fuel. That fuel is then burnt to generate more CO2, which is added to atmosphere, and not removed.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Comments
There is an enviromentalist movement and you can't stop it.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You do realize that truths and and natural laws exist independent of proof, don't you? I'm not referring to responsiblity to act, but just the basic fact that truth is independent of proof.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Do you propose that we don't do what we can to take responsibility for our actions and how we affect our environment?
There is a very big difference between living/surviving and with setting up and supporting systems that encourage and perpetuate dramatically negatively affecting our environment and our lives for a profit.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm not proposing anything. I'm asking a question. Someone early in the thread said we need to start treating the earth with the respect it deserves. I'm asking that, since it's impossible not to do some damage to it, what is an acceptable level.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It isn't a quantifiable variable. Just try to minimize your impact. Simple living "destroys" the enviornment, but that is normal. Just don't take it to the nth degree. Every bit helps.
Then let's raze New York city and let it go back to nature.
...and let's all go live in tents.
Isn't that minimizing our impact?
You can't tell me that if you are living in a permanent structure you have truly minimized your impact.
(i.e. it's so subjective to talk about minimizing impact. I'd wager it could be successfully argued that YOU aren't minimizing your impact)
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Yes, living in a tent is minimalizing your impact. It also is not realistic. Progress, technology, cities are a reality and necessary for evolution and moving forward. But again, they don't have to be as damaging as we currently allow them to be. Tighter EPA standards on pollution emission for companies, recycling, driving a hybrid rather than a fucking Tahoe, and so on minimize the negative impact of moving forward. It certainly can't hurt.
As far as that last line, I certainly can be doing better, everybody can, and that is the point. Also, I know it is subjective, that is why I said it was unquantifiable.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
"First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky."
-Enoch Powell
We went down this road earlier. This is not something that can be explained by simple 'if x occurs, Y will happen'.
" Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved," OK, so if you can't prove it, even though it is obvious, it isn't true. I will say the same thing I said earlier, try this experiment regarding human attribution: go in your garage, turn on your car, close the garage door, and roll down the windows. After 15 minutes (and after you cough up shit til you puke, wipe your burning eyes, and take 4 advil for the headache) start contemplating the fact that there are millions of cars pumping that shit in the air. On top of the factories belching shit, landfills, toxic waste, and natural water dumping. And there HAS been 'perpetual repetition of this for the last 150 years. I'm not 'promoting visions of disaster', just cancer clusters, higher incidences of weather anomolies, and just some generally fucked shit. If you don't think we are fucking anything up, you are insane, in total denial, or completely self-absorbed. Just try to be better about this shit. It isn't going to impact you tremendously, but over time, your off-spring will pay the price.
-Enoch Powell
Dr. Lindzen, the author of your article though a scientist is a paid consultant to oil companies CorporateWhore.
So the answer is that we do not know what level we need to be living at, just that it (supposedly) needs to be better than we're doing now?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I think it would be a good idea that we start looking at our personal responsibility to our surroundings. For most people I know, just considering their impact on their environment is a big step. We might begin to realize how we sometimes treat our environment as an objective backdrop to our lives. Some of us are often oblivious to the consequences of taking so much from life, and loading our very life-sphere up with toxins. This is the very sphere of existence that supports our own lives, and yet we seem to live as though we are unconnected to this "backdrop". The biosphere is not just around us, it actually is in us too! We are of life. We are life. If we each personally considered this we might come to decide for ourselves some common sense personalized changes that can easily emerge.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The answer is sustainability. Our current level is not sustainable and the sooner we address it the lesser our problems will be.
To figure out how the digestive systems break down food and utilize the nutrients in it for energy. I thought this could replace fossil fuels.
Then I remembered that biological waste releases greenhouse gases, namely CO2 and Methane. So, that's not really any better.
Then I thought, well if we just walk everywhere instead of driving, we use more energy, consume more food and excrete more biological waste, releasing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Hmm, that argument sucks. Here's some reasons why:
The way we break down carbon compounds to release energy is essentially the same as combustion, so it does produce CO2. But, think about it, if you drive to work every day you're not only moving yourself, you're moving one or two tons of steel as well. You have to burn enough fuel to provide the energy to move all that steel, as well as yourself.
The food we eat comes from plants, or from animals which were fed on plants. When you grow a plant you use CO2 (ie remove it from the atmosphere). Then when you eat the food that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere, the net change in C02 concentration in the atmosphere is zero (obviously this is oversimplified, but you get the idea). When you dig up coal or oil you don't remove any CO2, in fact, you actually relase large quantities just in the process of digging up the fuel. That fuel is then burnt to generate more CO2, which is added to atmosphere, and not removed.
-C Addison
Basically, yes.