Log in

View Full Version : We don't need the government to invest in alternative fuels.



JaggedEdge
03-25-2009, 07:29 PM
The Obama administration keeps mentioning how important it is for us to invest in alternative fuels, unfortunately, they aren't needed in this area. The reason our system works is the private sector works these things out on it's own.

Do you honestly believe the automakers aren't aware we will run out of oil in the next 30 years or so? Do you honestly believe they will remain idle while they are run out of business? No, they will adapt. They will improve alternative fuel technology, because it affects their profit margin. They have much more incentive to invest in this kind of technology than the government does.

We don't need them spending our money to research what the private sector will research on their own!

The free market should be the determining factor in what technologies are developed and improved upon. If their is a market for fucking windmills private companies will invest in windmill technology. If their is a market for solar panels they will invest in that area.

I remember the government pushing the whole ethanol thing and that turned out great. People in other countries were starving because we were using food to make our fuel. I remember saying it didn't seem like a good idea to use food for fuel and low and behold problems occurred because of it. These are the type of sophomoric ideas these folks in Washington come up with. We don't need them peddling their ignorant ideas.

There are people in the fields far more qualified to develop solutions, research the problems, and find private investors to finance such endeavors. They tend to be more competent as well considering they are using their own funds, or are required to show progress the the investors who's money they are using. The government on the other hand isn't using their own money. They simply use the taxpayers money to fund this shit and therefor don't care as much about actual results.

If the American consumer wants something, chances are good the private sector will produce it.

jonquest
03-25-2009, 11:59 PM
After reading some of your posts, I have to ask you...did you vote for Ron Paul?

Stemis516
03-26-2009, 12:48 AM
im not saying that i disagree with you but all the automakers have been on the verge of crumbling for some time now all because they didnt invest in alternative fuel and stuff....and oil didnt even run out, the price just went up a little bit....so i dont really know how much we can trust them to make the correct investments

i mean whats wrong with the government giving out some grants at the very least to continue and improve research in the area

overgrowthegovt
03-26-2009, 02:53 AM
I dislike and mistrust governments as much as the next man (believe me), but the only thing more self-serving and amoral than a government is a corporation. There is nothing holy about the free market, no inherent value in laissez-faire leave to arbitrarily fuck with the world and its peoples.

Of course the government needs to invest in alternative fuels. I can hardly think of a better use for tax dollars, with the possible exception of education. Alternative fuels are absolutely necessary for human progress at this point, for man to finally begin rectifying the environmental carnage we've wrought for the longest time. This holy free market will indeed explore other fuel sources, realizing that this is necessary for their profit and survival, but these will not necessarily be eco-friendly sources. The problem with the holiness of the completely free market is that world commerce is in the hands of CEOs who value money and nothing else, who have no other interests or concern for human well-being in general. Governments, as corrupt and inefficient as they mostly are, at least have other concerns besides profit, so I whole-heartedly support their role in alternative fuel progress.

JaggedEdge
03-26-2009, 03:14 AM
After reading some of your posts, I have to ask you...did you vote for Ron Paul?

No, but only because he didn't have a shot at winning. I wouldn't have been able to live with myself if Obama happened to take louisiana by a few votes.

I love Ron Paul, I just wish people gave him the respect he deserved.

JaggedEdge
03-26-2009, 03:22 AM
im not saying that i disagree with you but all the automakers have been on the verge of crumbling for some time now all because they didnt invest in alternative fuel and stuff....and oil didnt even run out, the price just went up a little bit....so i dont really know how much we can trust them to make the correct investments

i mean whats wrong with the government giving out some grants at the very least to continue and improve research in the area

1. The government is broke.

2. The government doesn't have money of it's own, just what the citizens are forced to hand over to them.

Besides, American car makers aren't the only ones who will be searching for these things. Japanese and German automakers will also try and come up with an affordable and efficient alternative to these problems.

It depends on the automaker, they should be allowed to survive or fail on their own, without interference by the government. Their problems lie in having an inferior product when compared to foreign cars. Some may have corrupt CEO's or poor money management, I'm not exactly sure. There problems have absolutely nothing to do with there not investing in alternative fuels.

They adapt, the Hummer for instance keeps downsizing because of consumer trends. People just aren't willing to buy big Hummers the way the used to, so now we have the H3.

Honda is not the only automaker with hybrid vehicles, so I'm not exactly sure how you equate their problems to a failure in researching other alternatives.

Stemis516
03-26-2009, 03:39 AM
japanese and german automakers have been, thats why they arent all broke right now


and i will agree with you, i am also for the american automakers failing....ford should be the only one left because they were in the best condition and have made it without aid and then once this thing turns around they shouldve been able to reap the benefits of being the only american automaker left but no


hell niether me nor my parents have bought an american car that i can remember and i certainly dont plan to ever buy one....they just make an inferior product and youre right, they should no longer exist

but i mean youre sort of contradicting yourself here....you want the car companies to take care of their own business but yet you have recognized that they are not capable of this.....trust me, i prefer the free markets just as much as the next guy, but unlike you and our buddy ron paul i want the federal government to still play a minor role, albeit much diminished from what they are today

JaggedEdge
03-26-2009, 04:00 AM
I dislike and mistrust governments as much as the next man (believe me), but the only thing more self-serving and amoral than a government is a corporation. There is nothing holy about the free market, no inherent value in laissez-faire leave to arbitrarily fuck with the world and its peoples.

You obviously don't mistrust the government as much as you like to pretend, otherwise you would think their meddling was a liability.


Alternative fuels are absolutely necessary for human progress at this point, for man to finally begin rectifying the environmental carnage we've wrought for the longest time.All this hippie bullshit pisses me off. Why does it have to be "eco-friendly?" If there is a market for eco-friendly products they will be created. What you are talking about is the government interfering in our lives by saying we can only buy products that are eco-friendly. The environment looks fine to me. The soil still grows food, the water is drinkable, what the fuck exactly is wrong with our environment. You can take care of the environment without becoming a fucking eco-nazi.


Environmental carnage? What exactly is this carnage you speak of? The pseudo-science know as Global Warming? Species going extinct despite the fact it happens every day and has been happening for thousands of years? Carnage is a very strong word, yet I don't see any evidence of carnage taking place. Sure the smog in L.A. indicates a problem with pollution in the area, therefor they need to fix their own problem on their own.

I also like the hypocrisy of liberal thinking. I assume you believe Darwin was correct with his theories, yet we must save all these species and plants, we must save the environment! Darwin wouldn't care what animals live and die, it a part a nature. What every happened to natural selection and survival of the fittest? If your planet is changing, we and other animals will adapt, if not, we really aren't worthy of surviving.


This holy free market will indeed explore other fuel sources, realizing that this is necessary for their profit and survival, but these will not necessarily be eco-friendly sources. Again, why do they have to be eco-friendly?


The problem with the holiness of the completely free market is that world commerce is in the hands of CEOs who value money and nothing else, who have no other interests or concern for human well-being in general.Are you really that idealistic. Of course CEO's care about making money, they would never have advanced to that position if they weren't good at it. I fail to see what is wrong with succeeding in life and making a fortune. Are they evil because the started a company and turned it into a profitable business? Are they evil for creating jobs? Yes, there are corrupt CEO's, but they aren't all corrupt.

Not to mention, what incentive would their be to invent things if it weren't due to money. If you come up with an ingenious idea, you want to get a patent. If it weren't for the financial benefits of coming up with said idea, what incentive would their be to actually work at it and eventually produce the product?

Governments don't come up with great ideas, civilians do.

Also, with the free market, if you don't like the practices of a company you can choose to not support them financially. There isn't that check and balance when it comes to the government and it's investments.

And do you really believe politicians aren't greedy? Do you honestly believe the majority of politicians care about the people? Their actions don't suggest they give a fuck about us. They not only are greedy when it comes to money, but they are power hungry as well.

I hate ignorant generalized statements like that. Yup, every CEO and every president of a company would slaughter 10 children if the price was right. Believe you that...

What alternative fuels do you have in mind? Windmills that kill birds like their going out of season and are very unreliable. It's a technology that has been around for 100's of years and is still complete shit? Perhaps solar panels. Nope you need to many of those in order to produce a reasonable amount of power, not to mention all these people who want alternative energy don't want it in their backyard. Sure we could try and improve it, but who is to determine which of these inferior sources of energy will power the country.

Nuclear power is the best we have right now, but we can't use that because the critics say it isn't eco-friendly.

JaggedEdge
03-26-2009, 04:06 AM
japanese and german automakers have been, thats why they arent all broke right now


Your missing the point, their failings have nothing to do with failing to research proper alternatives. There are American made cars that are fuel efficient and/or electric. I fail to see your point. If one American company fails, others will likely pop up in their place.

Stemis516
03-26-2009, 01:15 PM
man, i really enjoyed debating back and forth with you lately but since you basically claim that global warming is false i really cant take anything you say seriously anymore

and no, im not brainwashed by the government or whatever you think is the case...but its happening and humans are at fault

look, i can see where youre coming from....the government and its meddlings are responsible for alot of whats wrong in this country, im not disagreeing with you there, and in the vast majority of cases should be handled by the markets themselves but some government oversight is needed....anti-trust laws are one instance i can think of....a civilian can take advantage of the free markets easily if they wanted to

and about the cars i dont think i am missing the point....if all the american automakers did fail i highly doubt new carmakers would just pop up, its too late in the game for that....people would just buy more cars from japan or europe

i mean your whole thread was about wanting the american car companies to do thier own research but they have proven over the years that they are completely incapable with competing with japanese and european car companies...while toyota was busy coming up with the prius, us stupid ass americans were trying to make a bigger SUV

god i need to finish my degree and get the F out of this country

5thHorseMan
03-26-2009, 04:21 PM
I'm beginning to think jaggededge is just a turban wearing imam in cave on the afghan/pakistan border. Since damn everything he writes is wholly disconnected from whats actually going on, or at best a gross misunderstanding of the underlying reasons.

Yes lets continue to rely on a fuel, that is not renewable, let some other generation figure out the solution. Lets continue importing oil, and funding terrorists, or drill for oil offshore, where the oil is not only of lower quality but exceedingly deep, and difficult to locate, yeah just throw in some holes with massively expensive equipment that guess, the oil companies will make taxpayers pay for anyway because guess what those companies are all subsidized, by you the American taxpayer.

JaggedEdge
03-26-2009, 06:01 PM
man, i really enjoyed debating back and forth with you lately but since you basically claim that global warming is false i really cant take anything you say seriously anymore


Wrong. I don't "claim" global warming is false, I know man-made global warming is bullshit. Have you actually looked at the facts and checked their primary sources? Or have you simply accepted what Al Gore tells you and a few scientists? There are scientists that support both sides of the argument, so how do you know who to believe unless you look at the facts yourself?

JaggedEdge
03-26-2009, 06:08 PM
I'm beginning to think jaggededge is just a turban wearing imam in cave on the afghan/pakistan border. Since damn everything he writes is wholly disconnected from whats actually going on, or at best a gross misunderstanding of the underlying reasons.

Yes lets continue to rely on a fuel, that is not renewable, let some other generation figure out the solution. Lets continue importing oil, and funding terrorists, or drill for oil offshore, where the oil is not only of lower quality but exceedingly deep, and difficult to locate, yeah just throw in some holes with massively expensive equipment that guess, the oil companies will make taxpayers pay for anyway because guess what those companies are all subsidized, by you the American taxpayer.

Wow, I'm being insulted by someone who can't even write a sentence using correct grammar. When you engage in a debate of this nature, it is wise to at least make an attempt at sounding intelligent.

Drilling technology has gotten much better. Even if it is extremely deep and sometimes hard to locate, it doesn't justify not allowing them to drill where they can.

Also, I have never heard domestic oil is of a much lower quality, but even if it is, we can adapt.

I love how you support the federal government spending a trillion dollars but groan about the cost of drilling equipment...

JaggedEdge
03-26-2009, 06:13 PM
One other thing. We are still a long way's away from alternate sources of energy, so again, what is the argument against producing our own oil when it is needed.

I'm not arguing against searching for alternative means of power, simply saying the government doesn't need to be wasting our money on it.

5thHorseMan
03-26-2009, 06:52 PM
There is little in the way of private investment however for even promising alternative sources. And even so there remains the issue of scalability, and potential failure.

This is the major failing point of agro ethanol, it's next to impossible to scale up production to meet the demands of the market place, and this ultimately lead to it's near abandonment as a fuel source.

Most companies don't want to invest resources in such a venture, but would rather just wait around and aquire the resulting patents. This leaves only a trickle of investment to develop these technologies. And for something as important for the future of the US's economic security, and with some technolgies too promising to simply wait on the back burner for the next twenty years, it makes a certain amount of sense to for the government to throw some money at the researchers and kick em in the ass, to jump start the process.

Coelho
03-26-2009, 07:39 PM
All this hippie bullshit pisses me off. Why does it have to be "eco-friendly?" If there is a market for eco-friendly products they will be created. What you are talking about is the government interfering in our lives by saying we can only buy products that are eco-friendly. The environment looks fine to me. The soil still grows food, the water is drinkable, what the fuck exactly is wrong with our environment. You can take care of the environment without becoming a fucking eco-nazi.

Environmental carnage? What exactly is this carnage you speak of? The pseudo-science know as Global Warming? Species going extinct despite the fact it happens every day and has been happening for thousands of years? Carnage is a very strong word, yet I don't see any evidence of carnage taking place. Sure the smog in L.A. indicates a problem with pollution in the area, therefor they need to fix their own problem on their own.

I also like the hypocrisy of liberal thinking. I assume you believe Darwin was correct with his theories, yet we must save all these species and plants, we must save the environment! Darwin wouldn't care what animals live and die, it a part a nature. What every happened to natural selection and survival of the fittest? If your planet is changing, we and other animals will adapt, if not, we really aren't worthy of surviving.

Well... from this (and the previous) posts, i must conclude that youre a hard-line republican...

(BTW... from what were seeing lately it seems the capitalism isnt fit enough to survive in the long term, and so the america and its dream seems to be heading to its own extinction... just like the dinosaurs who ate all the plants [natural resources] and then starved to death...)


I'm beginning to think jaggededge is just a turban wearing imam in cave on the afghan/pakistan border. Since damn everything he writes is wholly disconnected from whats actually going on, or at best a gross misunderstanding of the underlying reasons.

No he isnt... the Muslins (or whoever you intended to offend) may be a bit extremists, but their ideas are not this capitalist/republican...


god i need to finish my degree and get the F out of this country

Indeed! Surely it will be the best thing you will do! I wish you good luck and that you succeed as soon as possible! :thumbsup:

JaggedEdge
03-26-2009, 07:55 PM
Well... from this (and the previous) posts, i must conclude that youre a hard-line republican...

(BTW... from what were seeing lately it seems the capitalism isnt fit enough to survive in the long term, and so the america and its dream seems to be heading to its own extinction... just like the dinosaurs who ate all the plants [natural resources] and then starved to death...)
:thumbsup:

Nope I'm actually a hard-line Libertarian. I align myself with the Republican party on economic issues, welfare issues, etc. I agree with democratic principles on a few social issues, but ultimately I think it's up to the states to make their own rules, with only a few exceptions. I disagree that Capitalism has failed. The fact is we haven't haven't had an actual free market economy for quit some time now. If the feds would stop interfering with the private sector Capitalism may yet survive. The only reason we have as many problems as we have today is due to federal involvement.

To sum it up, I disagree that Capitalism has proven itself inefficient, however for the sake of argument I will agree with you. It is obvious at this point Capitalism hasn't worked, the only problem with that logic is you aren't taking into account the failures that occurred as a direct result of government intervention. From what I can tell, the government is like death, everything it touches withers and dies.

We started our shift to Socialism during FDR's era. At that time true Capitalism, true free-market economics, and our Republic began to die. Granted, America as a Republic actually got off track about 20 years after the Constitution was signed, but that's another matter all together.

The truth is, a lot of people in power want the free market and pass legislation to help the process along.

JaggedEdge
03-26-2009, 08:07 PM
Oh, and back to automakers, of course they won't risk their money searching for alternative solutions if they think the government will spend tax payer dollars to do it for them.

If it is a matter of survival they will attempt it though.

5thHorseMan
03-26-2009, 08:25 PM
Coming back to Coelho for a quick second. It's foolhardy to say capitlism is on the verge of extinction, by and large it is the preferable way of facilitating economic prosperity. And there are of course many different forms of capitalism out there, capitalism is just a general catch all for a whole of different theories and proposed economic systems, some of which share no more than the idea of private enterprise.

overgrowthegovt
03-27-2009, 06:43 AM
JaggedEdge, I think virtually everything you've said was nullified by your assertion that the environment is fine. Letting the free market decide how much, if any, concern we should have for the earth, is just ridiculous. And believe me, I hate government intervention the vast majority of the time, but I think governments have a responsibility to keep the industries in line (including paying a decent wage no matter where the widgets are made. Products would cost more if this whole sweat-shop system was discarded, but so what? Do we really need so much shit?)

You really believe an instutiton that cares about nothing but money should be allowed to do as it pleases without having to answer to the interests of the population in general? Damn you, Adam Smith. It seems a lot of people tend to support the totally-free market without considering the tremendous cons it offers along with the pros (which I admit exist). Companies can do business as they like, as far as I'm concerned, except that they must be held to ethical and environmental standards.

I'll say it again, THE ENVIRONMENT IS NOT FINE. I'll buy you one loooong snorkel for that sandbox. I'm not even going to get into that one here...if you're not aware in 2009 that we've done a lot of damage, I can't help you.

overgrowthegovt
03-27-2009, 07:05 AM
Of course I think politicians are greedy and don't give a fuck about us, JaggedEdge...I was just saying that they do have other interests besides money (few, but a handful).

There's nothing wrong with starting a company, of course not, but the idea of businessmen having more power than anybody else is a scary thought. "Idealistic" is a dirty word for a lot of people, but I believe people compromise their ideals too readily. Is it too much to ask for people to care about more than just money and power? Education needs to change...we're all taught that those are the highest things to aspire for. Sure, they give you the true-love rhetoric, but it seems all success is measured by how financially sound you are. Yes, of course I'm that idealistic...pragmatism compromises the soul. The world we live in is not okay and there are a large number of drastic changes that need to occur.

Of course I believe Darwin...survival of the fittest in NATURE. We basically transcended nature (for the worst) a long time ago, and our metal and sludge can't be considered a legitimate Darwinian obstacle for the world's species. People can only stick their fingers in their ears and hum for so long about global warming. And yes, species have been going extinct forever, but not on this SCALE since the dinosaurs. And yes, climate change is natural, but again, not on this SCALE.

Dutch Pimp
03-27-2009, 07:28 AM
The Untied States of America..:s4::rolleyes:...won't switch from milk to orange juice...until, they're sure that cow is dry. IMO.

jonquest
03-27-2009, 09:26 AM
JaggedEdge, I think virtually everything you've said was nullified by your assertion that the environment is fine. Letting the free market decide how much, if any, concern we should have for the earth, is just ridiculous. And believe me, I hate government intervention the vast majority of the time, but I think governments have a responsibility to keep the industries in line (including paying a decent wage no matter where the widgets are made. Products would cost more if this whole sweat-shop system was discarded, but so what? Do we really need so much shit?)

By saying the free market can't decide how much concern we should have for the environment, you are saying that people can't decided how much concern we should have for the environment.



You really believe an instutiton that cares about nothing but money should be allowed to do as it pleases without having to answer to the interests of the population in general? Damn you, Adam Smith. It seems a lot of people tend to support the totally-free market without considering the tremendous cons it offers along with the pros (which I admit exist). Companies can do business as they like, as far as I'm concerned, except that they must be held to ethical and environmental standards.

With profit from consumers being the main objective of a company, a company must answer to the interests of the population. As for environmental regulations, I have no problem with those. If a company is polluting the air or water, they are infringing on the rights of others to breathe clean air and drink clean water.
[/QUOTE]

Stemis516
03-27-2009, 01:37 PM
see jaggededge, thats where you lose all credibility...whenever some1 says something that you disagree with you immediately claim that we are brainwashed or dont look at the facts....or worse, you turn into the grammar police

i have looked at the facts...im aware the earth heats up and cools down in cycles over time but the fact is, were heating this thing up faster than it ever has before...species are dying at a faster pace than ever before and its all because of us

sure, if everyone wanted a better environment than perhaps the free market would adjust itself, but i just dont see that happening for two reasons: 1.the general public is too fucking stupid to point the markets in the direction needed...most people just care about the lowest price and convenience without concern for the environment and 2. most large corporations dont give a fuck about the public anyways, they just care about profits and helping the environment doesnt help their short run profits...and if enough of them dont give a fuck we dont really have much of a choice because most of us believe that we have to buy certain things

Stemis516
03-27-2009, 01:38 PM
By saying the free market can't decide how much concern we should have for the environment, you are saying that people can't decided how much concern we should have for the environment.
[/QUOTE]

i would have to agree, i do not think people in general know whats truly best for them....most would rather see lower prices and let the next generation figure this shit out

McDanger
03-27-2009, 02:19 PM
man, i really enjoyed debating back and forth with you lately but since you basically claim that global warming is false i really cant take anything you say seriously anymore

and no, im not brainwashed by the government or whatever you think is the case...but its happening and humans are at fault



god i need to finish my degree and get the F out of this country

You have this statement exactly backwards, get the F out first, then see if you can convince some taxpayer in Cuba to pay for your degree.

Explain how humans are causing the warming of Mars.

Stemis516
03-27-2009, 03:14 PM
and the warming of mars is relevant how? and who says im moving to cuba?

JaggedEdge
03-27-2009, 06:56 PM
Of course I believe Darwin...survival of the fittest in NATURE. We basically transcended nature (for the worst) a long time ago, and our metal and sludge can't be considered a legitimate Darwinian obstacle for the world's species. People can only stick their fingers in their ears and hum for so long about global warming. And yes, species have been going extinct forever, but not on this SCALE since the dinosaurs. And yes, climate change is natural, but again, not on this SCALE.

Why is our intervention in the environment any different than that of other species. The beaver builds damns for it's own convinces, the diversion of water helps him and other species while harming others in his area.

I agree with certain environmental regulations, but things have gotten to a point where the regulations being proposed harm industries, jobs, and companies.

We have been influencing our environment for thousands of years. The Native Americans understood it was a good thing. They used to burn down forests in order to control the growth of large trees, all large trees did was kill the smaller and more useful ones. The trees we have today in many parts of the country aren't even native, because the Natives burned down the forests and new smaller ones grew in the place of the old big ones.

And their is absolutely no solid evidence to support the Global Warming theory.

Simply because the vast majority of the population believes in a theory doesn't make it accurate. A majority of people believed in Eugenics at one point, giving Hitler the political support to begin eradicating the Jews.

Even Planned Parenthood was developed due directly to the belief in Eugenics. The founder actually said she wanted to eliminate the dredges of American society through birth control. That isn't an exact quote, but it sums her position up well. They want to eradicate the part of the population they pretend to protect.

I'm actually more liberal than most liberals.

JaggedEdge
03-27-2009, 07:00 PM
see jaggededge, thats where you lose all credibility...whenever some1 says something that you disagree with you immediately claim that we are brainwashed or dont look at the facts....or worse, you turn into the grammar police

i have looked at the facts...im aware the earth heats up and cools down in cycles over time but the fact is, were heating this thing up faster than it ever has before...species are dying at a faster pace than ever before and its all because of us

sure, if everyone wanted a better environment than perhaps the free market would adjust itself, but i just dont see that happening for two reasons: 1.the general public is too fucking stupid to point the markets in the direction needed...most people just care about the lowest price and convenience without concern for the environment and 2. most large corporations dont give a fuck about the public anyways, they just care about profits and helping the environment doesnt help their short run profits...and if enough of them dont give a fuck we dont really have much of a choice because most of us believe that we have to buy certain things

There are still an infinite number of species we haven't discovered, and we are discovering new ones everyday, so isn't it logical to assume that more species are going extinct because we know about more of them than we used to?

And no, I only result to those kinds of things when people say idiotic things and insult me first. Read his first response, he called me a dimwit.

JaggedEdge
03-27-2009, 08:59 PM
Sorry, can't proof read, have to go to work.


JaggedEdge, I think virtually everything you've said was nullified by your assertion that the environment is fine.

I wanted to discuss this all by itself. How is my assertion the environment is virtually fine ruin my whole argument. I'm not saying their aren't certain environmental issues that could be beneficial, however, environmentalists undermine their entire operation by attempting to control every aspect of our lives.

The coast is eroding in Southern Louisiana is a legitimate concern. It hurts our economy, doesn't provide adequate protection from incoming hurricanes, etc.

Unfortunately, environmentalists can't seem to prioritize. Not to mention, a lot of environmental actions only harm the environment.

Smokey the Bear sounded positive when he was preaching, "You can prevent forest fires," unfortunately, the fires were an intricate part to our environment. For one, when fires do break out, they are even more difficult to get under control because they are so thick in places. Also, fire is an intricate part in new trees growing and reviving the land.

The DDT ban is another example of how environmental issues make our lives worse. There is no evidence DDT causes health risks, however, it's proven to control mosquito populations. A few supporters of DDT used to eat it daily on stage to prove it was harmless, they died of old age.

Now millions of people die in third world countries from malaria, something that DDT had prevented before it was banned. Not to mention we now spend tax dollars to buy them mosquito nets when all we would have to do is let them use DDT.

From Hoodwinked by Jack Cashill:

There, Edwards got the order to dust every soldier in his company with the DDT powder. For two weeks straight, he did just that, breathing the fog of white dust as he did so. Much to everyone's relief, the DDT worked, and the epidemic was checked (Typhus spread by lice). The surgeon general estimated that the DDT had saved the lives of five thousand soldiers.If you would like to read more on the subject you can find it on pages 199-206.

Ultimately, it's a harmless insecticide that if allowed, would save millions of lives lost due to disease spread by insects.

The point is, yes, there are areas that could benefit from environmental controls. Unfortunately, environmental concerns often harm the environment.

The truth is, we don't know how to benefit the environment, so we shouldn't even try until we get it right. The environment is an intricate balancing act, but we have no clue how to balance it. When we save one animal, it often whips of major portions of another population, etc. Every living thing has it's purpose in our environment, yet we try and influence it without even fully understanding what our actions will do to our environment.

It hardly sounds environmentally friendly to me.

jonquest
03-27-2009, 11:51 PM
i would have to agree, i do not think people in general know whats truly best for them....most would rather see lower prices and let the next generation figure this shit out

so what would you like to see the government do to promote energy efficient/environmentally friendly cars?

Stemis516
03-28-2009, 12:05 AM
so what would you like to see the government do to promote energy efficient/environmentally friendly cars?

well, off the top of my head they could give tax breaks or some other form of reward to people who buy hybrids or other energy efficient cars

they could give out money in the form of grants and stuff for the research of oil free alternatives and the sort

o how about this one? they could NOT bailout the auto companies who are so dependent on oil that they go bankrupt if gas prices get a little high....guess i was a little late on that one

jonquest
03-28-2009, 03:15 AM
well, off the top of my head they could give tax breaks or some other form of reward to people who buy hybrids or other energy efficient cars

this would be taking money from one person and giving it to another person to help pay for a car. it is both morally and economically wrong. if people are going to give money to others to buy cars, it should be consensual. if we lowered taxes people would have more funds to subsidize hybrid cars on their own.



they could give out money in the form of grants and stuff for the research of oil free alternatives and the sort

We already have the technology. This idea also has the same moral and economic problems as the first one.



o how about this one? they could NOT bailout the auto companies who are so dependent on oil that they go bankrupt if gas prices get a little high....guess i was a little late on that one
i couldn't agree with you more here.

i think moving to cleaner cars is somewhat important, but we don't need the government to interfere. the market is already moving us in the direction of cleaner cars. the government's job is not to regulate which cars are sold.

Coelho
03-28-2009, 04:23 AM
Well... hopefully, your government DO believe in the global warming and so will take the appropriate measures to try to diminish it, regardless the opinion of its not-eco-friendly citizens... i think its the first time i agree with the govt about anything...

JaggedEdge
03-28-2009, 05:01 AM
Well... hopefully, your government DO believe in the global warming and so will take the appropriate measures to try to diminish it, regardless the opinion of its not-eco-friendly citizens... i think its the first time i agree with the govt about anything...


Dear god... global warming, global warming, global warming. Eugenics was a popular theory during Hitler's time. That turned out great.

I love the problems "eco-conscious" people have caused the environment.

JaggedEdge
03-28-2009, 05:30 AM
SOB... Another double post because of the server being busy.

Stemis516
03-28-2009, 12:34 PM
jonquest, so i take hit you disagree with welfare, medicaid and other forms in wealth redistribution as well? or apparently the government spending any of our tax dollars at all on anything?

overgrowthegovt
03-28-2009, 10:38 PM
JaggedEdge...

Eugenics: belief in it results in a genocidal nightmare.

Global warming: belief in it results in a cleaner environment. Even if you don't believe that humans are responsible for the shift, what's wrong with doing our best to improve matters? What harm can it do? As for the DDT, it softened the shells of birds' eggs to a dangerous degree, and is generally abhorrent for the world's species. Sometimes there is a bigger picture than humans and their petty striving.

There will always be people who claim that the whole concept is bullshit--for much the same reasons, I believe, that evolution is still called a "theory" and officials refrain from laughing in the face of intelligent design. (As a side note, I propose a compromise that God made the first organism and Darwinism took it from there. Would end a lot of ridiculous debate).

I think it to be an egregious problem that most people seem to pick an ideology (in your case libertarianism) and then stubbornly interpret absolutely everything along those lines. I too resent paternalistic government and checks to freedom...typically. I believe your average citizen to be just too fucking stupid to be allowed to decide something as momentous as the earth's future. As somebody pointed out, when the will of the people leads to the consumption of the cheapest and most heavily advertised goods (with no regard for environmental or ethical standards of the production of said goods), someone needs to intervene. It's like an intervention for alcoholism...nothing inherently wrong with drinking, but it's time to speak up when they start guzzling vodka all day.

Stemis516
03-29-2009, 12:06 AM
JaggedEdge...

Eugenics: belief in it results in a genocidal nightmare.

Global warming: belief in it results in a cleaner environment. Even if you don't believe that humans are responsible for the shift, what's wrong with doing our best to improve matters? What harm can it do? As for the DDT, it softened the shells of birds' eggs to a dangerous degree, and is generally abhorrent for the world's species. Sometimes there is a bigger picture than humans and their petty striving.

There will always be people who claim that the whole concept is bullshit--for much the same reasons, I believe, that evolution is still called a "theory" and officials refrain from laughing in the face of intelligent design. (As a side note, I propose a compromise that God made the first organism and Darwinism took it from there. Would end a lot of ridiculous debate).

I think it to be an egregious problem that most people seem to pick an ideology (in your case libertarianism) and then stubbornly interpret absolutely everything along those lines. I too resent paternalistic government and checks to freedom...typically. I believe your average citizen to be just too fucking stupid to be allowed to decide something as momentous as the earth's future. As somebody pointed out, when the will of the people leads to the consumption of the cheapest and most heavily advertised goods (with no regard for environmental or ethical standards of the production of said goods), someone needs to intervene. It's like an intervention for alcoholism...nothing inherently wrong with drinking, but it's time to speak up when they start guzzling vodka all day.


best post of the thread....thats why i dont associate with a certain political party or idealogy or whatever

i formulate ideas and decisions on an issue by issue basis

JaggedEdge
03-29-2009, 02:58 AM
JaggedEdge...

Eugenics: belief in it results in a genocidal nightmare.

When eugenics was first proposed, do you believe people foresaw genocide?


Global warming: belief in it results in a cleaner environment. Even if you don't believe that humans are responsible for the shift, what's wrong with doing our best to improve matters?

As I said before, a lot of the times people try and help the environment, but they only end up causing more harm. Nothing is wrong with improving our environment, assuming it doesn't result in our quality of life decreasing. The solutions people are proposing these day's will do absolutely that.



What harm can it do? As for the DDT, it softened the shells of birds' eggs to a dangerous degree, and is generally abhorrent for the world's species. Sometimes there is a bigger picture than humans and their petty striving.

I honestly have trouble believing your serious here... You honestly believe we should save the lives of birds over humans. You would trade human lives for those of birds? Why bother attempting to cure any disease? I'm actually at a lose for words over this one... Maybe one day you will be lucky enough to die of malaria, I say lucky, because at least you will be saving the lives of some birds....



I think it to be an egregious problem that most people seem to pick an ideology (in your case libertarianism) and then stubbornly interpret absolutely everything along those lines.

Your argument supports my view of global warming perfectly. Thank you. Your right, people don't look at the facts because they simply follow their ideological leaders; no need for them to think for themselves.




I too resent paternalistic government and checks to freedom...typically. I believe your average citizen to be just too fucking stupid to be allowed to decide something as momentous as the earth's future.

So we allow government officials to make these decisions. Why are our politicians special? Do you honestly believe that all these stupid and ignorant people would not vote their own kind into office?

McDanger
03-29-2009, 03:46 PM
and the warming of mars is relevant how? and who says im moving to cuba?
I don't care what OTHER COUNTRY'S TAXPAYERS pay for your degree as long as it is not ours, Cuba was just an example. You could go to anyplace you want. You are griping about this country, but you do not want to leave until after we pay for your degree.
As for what Mars has to do with so called global warming, you stated as fact that it is human caused. There is no human activity on Mars, yet it is warming also. That is what makes it relevant.

jonquest
03-29-2009, 06:13 PM
jonquest, so i take hit you disagree with welfare, medicaid and other forms in wealth redistribution as well? or apparently the government spending any of our tax dollars at all on anything?

you are correct. help for the poor, sick, elderly and the like should come from willing, charitable people. help for these people should not come from stealing people's money at gun point. a homeless person stealing a dollar from a millionaire is still robbery.

JaggedEdge
03-29-2009, 09:31 PM
you are correct. help for the poor, sick, elderly and the like should come from willing, charitable people. help for these people should not come from stealing people's money at gun point. a homeless person stealing a dollar from a millionaire is still robbery.

This is the underlying argument and it makes perfect sense to me. I don't understand why people can't see the difference between entitlement programs and charity. I don't know why it isn't up to the individual how he/she chooses to donate their money. NOBODY is entitled to someone else's money!

I imagine the people who support these programs would be royally pissed if their employer came to them one day and said, "Sir, I understand you work hard for your money, but 25% of your paycheck will be going to James from now on. He is having a hard time right now and seeing as how you and he work for the same company, he is entitled to that portion of your paycheck."

jonquest
03-29-2009, 09:59 PM
This is the underlying argument and it makes perfect sense to me. I don't understand why people can't see the difference between entitlement programs and charity. I don't know why it isn't up to the individual how he/she chooses to donate their money. NOBODY is entitled to someone else's money!

I imagine the people who support these programs would be royally pissed if their employer came to them one day and said, "Sir, I understand you work hard for your money, but 25% of your paycheck will be going to James from now on. He is having a hard time right now and seeing as how you and he work for the same company, he is entitled to that portion of your paycheck."

hahaha. you're example is perfect and gave me a good chuckle. it's almost like the broken window fallacy when you think about it. everyone says "of course we should give everyone healthcare." they don't realize that money has to come from someone else. i was talking to this guy about universal healthcare and he couldn't understand why it still wouldn't be free. he must have thought the money would just come from the sky from God himself.

GoldenBoy812
03-30-2009, 01:19 AM
I don't care what OTHER COUNTRY'S TAXPAYERS pay for your degree as long as it is not ours, Cuba was just an example. You could go to anyplace you want. You are griping about this country, but you do not want to leave until after we pay for your degree.


Brain drain prevention does not allow for professionals to "move" outside the country and begin practicing their new skill without obtaining a degree or certification (not medical either) within the system they desire.

Strictly speaking, a person cannot obtain an AMA license, a degree from Harvard, and begin practicing in France. While nobody can take your degree from you, French hospitals do not recognize foreign certification, and neither do any industrialized countries. Otherwise, a ton of countries would be pissed that they pay (especially Western Europe) for people to obtain a degree, and then they high tail to any free market segment that pays better.

Stemis516
03-30-2009, 02:27 AM
no taxpayers are paying for my education, i am paying for my education and no one else

frankly, i can take my degree wherever the hell i want thank you very much

GoldenBoy812
03-30-2009, 03:42 AM
But you will not be able to become certified in that country unless you work for a US subsidiary or some other means of employment that does not require a degree or certification.

In regards to the European community; they regulate against that type of transfer because they fear it for themselves (mostly in the health fields). Similarly, i cannot go to China and apply for a job at a Chinese owned company without a slew of legal obstacles. Instead, i would have to apply for a job at a US company with a Chinese operation.

overgrowthegovt
04-01-2009, 04:17 AM
When eugenics was first proposed, do you believe people foresaw genocide?



As I said before, a lot of the times people try and help the environment, but they only end up causing more harm. Nothing is wrong with improving our environment, assuming it doesn't result in our quality of life decreasing. The solutions people are proposing these day's will do absolutely that.




I honestly have trouble believing your serious here... You honestly believe we should save the lives of birds over humans. You would trade human lives for those of birds? Why bother attempting to cure any disease? I'm actually at a lose for words over this one... Maybe one day you will be lucky enough to die of malaria, I say lucky, because at least you will be saving the lives of some birds....




Your argument supports my view of global warming perfectly. Thank you. Your right, people don't look at the facts because they simply follow their ideological leaders; no need for them to think for themselves.





So we allow government officials to make these decisions. Why are our politicians special? Do you honestly believe that all these stupid and ignorant people would not vote their own kind into office?

Our quality of life is a little too high at the moment, materially. I really can't give any amount of a shit whether or not new environmental measures will result in your average person not being able to afford an HD TV.

You are right...stupid and ignorant people vote their own kind into office. In theory, then, nobody is qualified to make any decision, but decisions have to be made. If a river was being rapidly drained of all its fish, the people need to be banned from fishing there, however much some may moan about how their rights are being stepped on. I can't think of anything more dire than the future of the planet, but apparently our consumerist "quality" of life takes precedence. I used the birds as one example...the birds aren't the only victims of human "progress." I'd rather see a green world where we live more simply, than a world of wheels and gears in which everybody can consume to their heart's content.

I'm not a liberal, just a guy who tries to look at everything on its own terms. I'm typically pretty anarchistic, but I'm all for keeping people from doing irrevocable harm to the beautiful world. One day humans will be extinct and the earth will get a reprieve.

Coelho
04-01-2009, 10:31 AM
I'd rather see a green world where we live more simply, than a world of wheels and gears in which everybody can consume to their heart's content.

I think it isnt even a matter of personal liking... a world with the level of consumerism there is today simply cant last long. Many natural resources (from where everything that is consumed ultimately comes) are finite, and are ending, some of them fast. Sooner or later the society will reach an unsustainable point (if it didnt already) and it wont be able to keep existing as it is today.
So, this consumerist way of life is doomed to end, and surely its end will bring a lot of suffering, which could have been avoided if society hadnt indulged so much in unwise behaviors concerning its relationship with the rest of the world (that is FAR greater than the mere society).

McDanger
04-01-2009, 03:40 PM
no taxpayers are paying for my education, i am paying for my education and no one else

frankly, i can take my degree wherever the hell i want thank you very much
Unless you are going to a private college, with no grants, somebody is paying for at least half of your education since ALL public colleges are subsidized at least 50% by the state, plus any endowment or donations from alumni.

Stemis516
04-01-2009, 04:09 PM
Unless you are going to a private college, with no grants, somebody is paying for at least half of your education since ALL public colleges are subsidized at least 50% by the state, plus any endowment or donations from alumni.



its funny because i went to a private college with no grants and i am currently at a private graduate school...also with no grants

granted, i dont know how any of this you bring up is relevant to the thread but it wouldnt let me give you anymore rep to defend myself

good day sir

seattlesmoke247
04-01-2009, 04:20 PM
The government is needed for alternative energy. We can have 120 different companies reinventing the lightbulb, or we can put 120 companies together and get somewhere. The government must organize it.. Oil companies aren't going to put themselves out of buisness before they have to, and when they do it will take us down with them.

Think of it as the railway vs the freeway system.

Railway was very inefficient, government putting a company in charge and dumping cash into them... Money got absorbed by greedy people in the company and it turned out to be a big waste of cash, with the corporations in charge.

The freeway, the government hired out companies and organized it and it got done. The reason this worked out was because the government was invovled making sure tax dollars aren't getting pissed away. Some things are too big for private sectors to take care of themselves.. This is one of them.

It's amazing on D-day how we all got together.. The billions of dollars involved and all the different countries are kind of like 'private corporations of america'

We need the government to be the Eisenhower of alternative energy...


:stoned:

GoldenBoy812
04-01-2009, 05:40 PM
The government is needed for alternative energy. We can have 120 different companies reinventing the lightbulb, or we can put 120 companies together and get somewhere. The government must organize it.. Oil companies aren't going to put themselves out of buisness before they have to, and when they do it will take us down with them.

Your example is simply unrealistic. If these people, whom you believe are the "best" at organizing, are government bureaucrats, why are they working for 1000x's less, in a highly uncompetitive job market?

Quality managers exist in higher proportion, within the private sector. So much so that these "private managers" of industry hire "diplomats" on their behalf, to infiltrate Washington DC, on behalf of expanding consumption.


Think of it as the railway vs the freeway system.

Technological difference renders the comparison off base. Mass waves of immigrants are not needed to dig the trenches. Caterpillar is less of a long term costs, while providing greater production for both functions of time and money (which can be considered one in the same).


Railway was very inefficient, government putting a company in charge and dumping cash into them... Money got absorbed by greedy people in the company and it turned out to be a big waste of cash, with the corporations in charge.

Steam engines vs fuel cell/heavy diesel combustion:stoned: I could be wrong though....


The freeway, the government hired out companies and organized it and it got done. The reason this worked out was because the government was invovled making sure tax dollars aren't getting pissed away. Some things are too big for private sectors to take care of themselves.. This is one of them.

Do tell; were these people digging by hand? How about cranes? Where things lifted by a series of pulleys?


It's amazing on D-day how we all got together.. The billions of dollars involved and all the different countries are kind of like 'private corporations of America'

That's a reach.


We need the government to be the Eisenhower of alternative energy...


:stoned:

The same government you cannot trust to do what is just, selective drug criminalization, should be the decider of everything?:wtf: If i am to agree, i would also have to agree that they keep drugs illegal because it if beneficial to me and my fellow country men/women.

JaggedEdge
04-01-2009, 08:44 PM
The government is needed for alternative energy. We can have 120 different companies reinventing the lightbulb, or we can put 120 companies together and get somewhere. The government must organize it.. Oil companies aren't going to put themselves out of buisness before they have to, and when they do it will take us down with them.


Your example is the exact reason why we don't need the government. If there are 120 companies working on something, than there will be an abundance of different choices. Some will be terrible technologies and will be forgotten, others on the other hand will be superior and mass produced. If the government creates the light bulb, it may have a life of 3 hours as opposed to one that can last 10 years.

If you have one group working on a problem, you get one solution. If you have multiple groups working independently on the same problem, you get many different solutions. I don't see how this is complicated to understand. The one solution may not even work, however, it is far more likely one of many solutions discovered will be beneficial.

What you are talking about is taking your entire life savings to the casino and placing an all or nothing bet on red-25.

Yes they will risk their businesses because it means going out of business if they don't. Typically business owners are risk takers, some more than others. That is how the free market works. You take big calculated risks in order to get BIG rewards.

If we keep handing out money to them they won't risk their own because they don't have to.

GoldenBoy812
04-02-2009, 01:38 AM
What you are talking about is taking your entire life savings to the casino and placing an all or nothing bet on red-25.

Yes they will risk their businesses because it means going out of business if they don't. Typically business owners are risk takers, some more than others. That is how the free market works. You take big calculated risks in order to get BIG rewards.

If we keep handing out money to them they won't risk their own because they don't have to.

Exactly!!!!

This is commonly referred to as moral hazard. Who cares if my business fails, the government will just bail me out. Who cares if i can't make my mortgage payments, the government will just bail me out. Who cares if my skills are two generations old, the government will just bail me out.

Does anyone here believe businesses would behave in the manor they do (large scale corporate interests) if they "knew" the federal government was not in the business of alleviating failure?

You would have both less risk dependent reward (similar to black market operations), and much much much more innovative reward (creating something new that changes the way people think i.e. facebook/youtube/gps etc...).

Unproductive speculation can be reduced by simply refraining from intervening on behalf of failure.

JaggedEdge
04-02-2009, 03:57 AM
Our quality of life is a little too high at the moment, materially. I really can't give any amount of a shit whether or not new environmental measures will result in your average person not being able to afford an HD TV.

Really, our quality of life is to high? I also thought we wanted to continue to improve the quality of life. If you want to live in a cave, go right ahead. America, has one of the highest quality's of life, if not the highest in the world. That's why our poor live in shitty apartments, public housing, trailers; yet still have running water, electricity, many can afford some form of transportation, and have t.v's.

Do you even know the implications that will likely result due to what environmentalists and liberal politicians want to do in the name of our environment?



I can't think of anything more dire than the future of the planet, but apparently our consumerist "quality" of life takes precedence.

That is the problem, you assume our planet is in dire need of saving, it isn't.


I used the birds as one example...the birds aren't the only victims of human "progress."

I was talking about DDT specifically and you come back with some tree hugging crap about saving birds. So back to DDT, do you have sources that have not been debunked which claim DDT kills birds?


I'd rather see a green world where we live more simply, than a world of wheels and gears in which everybody can consume to their heart's content.

What exactly is green? I hate that fucking term. Could you be anymore abstract? Is green anything that has absolutely no adverse effects on the environment or the smallest atom within? Those are strict standards.

You can't throw around a term like green, that encompasses nearly everything you ideologues want to accomplish, regardless of it's actual influence on the environment.


I'm not a liberal, just a guy who tries to look at everything on its own terms. I'm typically pretty anarchistic, but I'm all for keeping people from doing irrevocable harm to the beautiful world. One day humans will be extinct and the earth will get a reprieve.

Simply because you claim you aren't a liberal doesn't make it so. Your views suggest you are a liberal. You can claim you look at things openly, however, if you had, you would see the outright lies told to you about global warming.

You also aren't an anarchist, if you were, you would believe people should do what ever the hell they want to their environment. Everything you have said is authoritarian in nature, which is in direct contrast to the philosophy of anarchism.

Coelho
04-02-2009, 03:19 PM
You also aren't an anarchist, if you were, you would believe people should do what ever the hell they want to their environment.

Their environment? Who the hell said that the environment is a human property, like their cars, houses and etc?

This kind of thought only made sense when men were "Gods image" and thus entitled to do whatever it wished with the earth, that was, after all, just a playground made for its own use and benefit... but nowadays evolution states that humans are just one more species on the earth, and this species hasnt anything "special" that justify that it use the entire earth for its own benefit...

JaggedEdge
04-02-2009, 05:33 PM
Their environment? Who the hell said that the environment is a human property, like their cars, houses and etc?

This kind of thought only made sense when men were "Gods image" and thus entitled to do whatever it wished with the earth, that was, after all, just a playground made for its own use and benefit... but nowadays evolution states that humans are just one more species on the earth, and this species hasnt anything "special" that justify that it use the entire earth for its own benefit...

Yup, our environment. Simply because I say it is ours doesn't mean I believe we are the sole possessors.

If I share a house with someone, does that mean it isn't my house anymore? Nice try though...

Coelho
04-02-2009, 10:21 PM
If I share a house with someone, does that mean it isn't my house anymore?

Well... remember that humans were one of the last species to evolve until its atual stage... the plants and animals were already here WAY before us... so i think we humans are the guests here, and not the owners...

JaggedEdge
04-02-2009, 10:36 PM
Well... remember that humans were one of the last species to evolve until its atual stage... the plants and animals were already here WAY before us... so i think we humans are the guests here, and not the owners...

We are creatures, same as all the others. Beavers alter their enviornment... (sorry, it isn't theirs, they weren't first...) yet we should not be allowed to alter it.

So by your logic, the last born child should not be able to alter anything in their household? When the parents die, the first born shall inherit the entire estate?

Your logic is so ridiculous it is laughable.

Now that you mention it, we should surgically alter our brains. Our mere ability to build homes and clear forests is a travesty. It can't be tolerated. It simply isn't fair that we are superior to our animal kin!

You hippies need to make up your mind. Are we a part of the natural world or are we not. If we evolved from monkey's than we are. Does the natural world and the rest of it's inhabitants care if they effect our species negatively? I'm not saying we shouldn't protect some aspects of our environment and the lesser species, but you loose all credibility with these extremist environmental views.

By the way, as a new found liberal, I propose the eradication of all beavers. Their diverting rivers is horrible and most be prevented at all costs!

delusionsofNORMALity
04-02-2009, 10:37 PM
... so i think we humans are the guests here, and not the owners...the essence of the matter is that humans are just another part of the natural order. we are not guests, we are not steward or wardens and we are not a plague. we merely seem to be the only creature here that feels guilty about placing our mark on the earth, something that every other species tries to do as best it can. we have the ability to see what damage we can do, but we do not always have the ability to stop or reverse the process.

JaggedEdge
04-02-2009, 10:41 PM
the essence of the matter is that humans are just another part of the natural order. we are not guests, we are not steward or wardens and we are not a plague. we merely seem to be the only creature here that feels guilty about placing our mark on the earth, something that every other species tries to do as best it can. we have the ability to see what damage we can do, but we do not always have the ability to stop or reverse the process.

What you are saying is a travesty. Other animals are simply doing what is natural to them, we on the other hand are a race of vile, evil, disgusting daemons who are hell bent on destroying everything beautiful and right in the world.

Did public school teach you nothing... ;)

delusionsofNORMALity
04-02-2009, 10:47 PM
Did public school teach you nothing... ;)i must a got stoned that day.

Stemis516
04-03-2009, 12:18 AM
We are creatures, same as all the others. Beavers alter their enviornment... (sorry, it isn't theirs, they weren't first...) yet we should not be allowed to alter it.

So by your logic, the last born child should not be able to alter anything in their household? When the parents die, the first born shall inherit the entire estate?

Your logic is so ridiculous it is laughable.

Now that you mention it, we should surgically alter our brains. Our mere ability to build homes and clear forests is a travesty. It can't be tolerated. It simply isn't fair that we are superior to our animal kin!

You hippies need to make up your mind. Are we a part of the natural world or are we not. If we evolved from monkey's than we are. Does the natural world and the rest of it's inhabitants care if they effect our species negatively? I'm not saying we shouldn't protect some aspects of our environment and the lesser species, but you loose all credibility with these extremist environmental views.

By the way, as a new found liberal, I propose the eradication of all beavers. Their diverting rivers is horrible and most be prevented at all costs!


laughable logic? i consider it laughable to compare a beaver dam to humans spewing manmade greenhouse gases into the environment at a pace never seen before

the majority of your posts in this thread are laughable...you can chalk to it to me believing the media or in lies made up by whomever but i have looked at the facts and you cant deny the effect were having on the environment is on a scale that this planet has never seen b4 in its history and you have posted nothing to convince me otherwise

you seem to think that politics and policy making or anything really is just one big philosophical argument that can be won simply by manipulating rhetoric and using your apparently elite lawyer skills to win on paper...there are empirical facts you cant just ignore because you want to

JaggedEdge
04-03-2009, 02:41 AM
laughable logic? i consider it laughable to compare a beaver dam to humans spewing manmade greenhouse gases into the environment at a pace never seen before

the majority of your posts in this thread are laughable...you can chalk to it to me believing the media or in lies made up by whomever but i have looked at the facts and you cant deny the effect were having on the environment is on a scale that this planet has never seen b4 in its history and you have posted nothing to convince me otherwise

you seem to think that politics and policy making or anything really is just one big philosophical argument that can be won simply by manipulating rhetoric and using your apparently elite lawyer skills to win on paper...there are empirical facts you cant just ignore because you want to

First of all, the most abundant green house gas is water vapor, the media, nor the politicians ever mention that however considering it would be difficult to reduce it. However, regardless of that fact, they still promoted cars which released water vapor as opposed to CO2. How exactly does that benefit the environment when water vapor is far worse according to nearly all sources.

The question is if any of these gases cause long term effects on our environment? As of yet they haven't, not in the form of planetary warming anyway.

The fact is, global warming is not being exacerbated by man, if it is occurring at all.

This is a chart from a top meteorologist.

Here is one chart of global temperatures. (http://longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif)

Here is one regarding the ice caps getting thinker. (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.107)

Here is one regarding what I was saying about DDT. (http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/s41p1357.htm)
(This site matches mimics the information found in Michael Crichton's State of Fear. If you would like his bibliography to double check the sources, you can buy or borrow his book from someone.)

I can tell your mind won't change easily, so why should I do a lot of work?

For good measure, here is one regarding DDT found in a medical journal. (http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/trstmh/article/PII0035920345900393/abstract)

Another (http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/222245_hart01.html)

Here is the EPA press release announcing the ban. (Assuming you automatically believe the government, you will accept this a proof they were right without doing further research.) (http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm)

Here is one final link where children debunk global warming.(Scroll down to the first video.) (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62598)

The fact is. They take a few anomalies and try and make a case for global warming despite opposite effects in other parts of the world. They claim the increase in natural disasters is proof when there isn't actually an increase. The number of hurricanes for instance has not risen at all.

One more. Here is a link from the National Hurricane Center.(For the U.S.) (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml)
(Do you notice more in recent years? I don't.)

I am trying to include a picture, I'm not sure if it will work though. If not here is the link. (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/atlhist_lowres.gif)

You can see that yes, the number of hurricanes have increased, however they have spiked several times since we first started recording them. Can you honestly this this proves global warming? A lot of articles I come across believe it does.

Is that better, I will try and refrain from "lawyer talk."

By the way, I don't see how a beaver dam is much different. Beavers divert entire rivers. I don't think the comparison is off base.

Stemis516
04-03-2009, 03:00 AM
you gotta be kidding me right?

you should do a bit more research on cliff harris and randy mann before trying to post one of their graphs....turns out they arent who they say they are and they are more motivated by the bible than anything else


lol and that hurricane graph you posted if you were to take the average trend of that line it pretty clearly to me looks upward sloping

and i dont really care what you have to say about ddt...i asked for links concerning your position on global warming and you have yet to provide an adequate one....posting all those erroneous links about ddt to just try and take the argument by sheer force wont work here


this will be my last post here as i can no longer take anything you say seriously because apparently its YOU who will just search the internet and believe anything you read or any graph you see

JaggedEdge
04-03-2009, 03:30 AM
you gotta be kidding me right?

you should do a bit more research on cliff harris and randy mann before trying to post one of their graphs....turns out they arent who they say they are and they are more motivated by the bible than anything else

this will be my last post here as i can no longer take anything you say seriously because apparently its YOU who will just search the internet and believe anything you read or any graph you see

Actually, I know what I know from far more reliable sources. The problem is finding them is more difficult than typing a few words in google. Seeing as you are set in your ways, there was no point in wasting a lot of my time searching for actual sources, but than again, yours aren't reliable either. So no, I did not get my initial info in that way, however, you are not worth a great deal of time in look for the sources or photocopying the graphs I have in books.

You go off what Al Gore and Michael Moore say.

Do you have actual proof that particular graph is incorrect? More or less it correlates with actual facts.

As I said before, if you want a reliable source, go to a bookstore and pick up "State of Fear." I'm not going to do all the ground work for you. He has many graph in his book as well as a detailed bibliography. Although it is a work of fiction, the science behind it is based on fact and he documents it in his bibliography.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)

That is the site he got his info from, although in the bibliography he stats they changed the length in which they show data shortly after the hard cover publication. Meaning, they show a shorter time span in their graphs.

You wonder why it is hard to find accurate information, it's because nearly all sites you would consider reliable are extremely biased and misrepresent information.

If you want another book, read, The Chilling Stars.

I got my info from books, I suggest you read them sometimes. But be warned, not all information is accurate. Siletn Spring is a perfect example of that, yet the liberals still support the ban of DDT.

You still have yet to touch on that subject. (DDT)

Or is that to difficult for you to argue against?

JaggedEdge
04-03-2009, 03:34 AM
Oh wait, you did touch on it simply by saying it is irrelevant. You are an idiot my friend. The ban on DDT has resulted in oodles of death's and that is unimportant to you.

Again if you would like the orginal books in which I got that information you can read: Hoodwinked and What's the matter with California.

Those links however represents the facts. Ignore them if you like, you are simply proving my point that finding actual sources is pointless when dealing with your kind.

Coelho
04-03-2009, 10:39 AM
So by your logic, the last born child should not be able to alter anything in their household?

The problem is the last born child, that now is a 5 years old children, somehow got a gun and now is bullying and forcing everyone else in the house to do whatever it wants... a home controled by an armed 5-years-old isnt very right, is?


the essence of the matter is that humans are just another part of the natural order. we are not guests, we are not steward or wardens and we are not a plague. we merely seem to be the only creature here that feels guilty about placing our mark on the earth, something that every other species tries to do as best it can. we have the ability to see what damage we can do, but we do not always have the ability to stop or reverse the process.

Yes, i agree, humans are another part of the natural order. The human industrial society isnt. The progress and industrialization gave humans power over the nature, which is what i meant with the gun at the paragraph above.

And having or not the ability to stop the damage is one thing, but closing the eyes for dont see the damage is another one...


First of all, the most abundant green house gas is water vapor, the media, nor the politicians ever mention that however considering it would be difficult to reduce it. However, regardless of that fact, they still promoted cars which released water vapor as opposed to CO2. How exactly does that benefit the environment when water vapor is far worse according to nearly all sources.

Well... in this case, the media and the politicians actually has a good reason for dont talk about the water vapor causing global warming... the amount of water vapor in the air is self-regulating, if there is too much of it the air becames more wet and rains, sending the excess of water vapor to the surface of earth condensed as water... yet the same doesnt happen with CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for very long amounts of time and hardly can be "condensed" into a harmless form.

BTW, anything can be proven or disproven with internet informations... but i do have facts. In the southern region of my country, there wasnt never ever any registered hurricane... but, since 2004 there were two of them, what never had happened before... and hurricanes need warm oceans to be created, so the only possible explanation is that somehow the ocean got hotter than it was before... why its so, we dont know for sure, but surely the global warming is the best candidate.

JaggedEdge
04-03-2009, 08:10 PM
The problem is the last born child, that now is a 5 years old children, somehow got a gun and now is bullying and forcing everyone else in the house to do whatever it wants... a home controled by an armed 5-years-old isnt very right, is?

And hunting is like the murdering of a 5 year old...



Well... in this case, the media and the politicians actually has a good reason for dont talk about the water vapor causing global warming... the amount of water vapor in the air is self-regulating, if there is too much of it the air becames more wet and rains, sending the excess of water vapor to the surface of earth condensed as water... yet the same doesnt happen with CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for very long amounts of time and hardly can be "condensed" into a harmless form.

BTW, anything can be proven or disproven with internet informations... but i do have facts. In the southern region of my country, there wasnt never ever any registered hurricane... but, since 2004 there were two of them, what never had happened before... and hurricanes need warm oceans to be created, so the only possible explanation is that somehow the ocean got hotter than it was before... why its so, we dont know for sure, but surely the global warming is the best candidate.

See here:

By that same logic, it never snows in Louisiana yet it took 3 days to melt this past winter. That supports global cooling right?

Also, the warmer temps are accounted for in the other post. Don't think the opposition doesn't have facts.

http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/169694-global-warming-political-lie.html