see - i knew i was doing my part for the environment when i ate that steak last night.
Printable View
see - i knew i was doing my part for the environment when i ate that steak last night.
Unfortunately, steak is a bit to expensive for me... The government should do it's part and enable me to save our poor environment by buying me a nice juicy steak. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
does beef jerky count? mmmmmmm beef jerky
'Global Warming' is a bullshit term...the earth has been naturally cooling and heating for millions of years...
Climate Change, on the other hand, might make a small amount of sense. Even here in Canada..we don't even have fall or spring it seems anymore, just 8 months of winter and 6 months of summer...the "seasons" we all grew up learning about have gone from four to two. So the way our climate operates may be differing..places usually defined as "arctic" and "tropical" are displaying characteristics that don't correspond with their climate...its not a big deal as some would make it out to be. Not enough fear inducement to get people to buy in to it...so we have to go with 'global warming'...the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.
I'm not sure as to my responsibility for it, but I'm sure as hell not prepared to let the government tell me that I'm responsible for it.
The atomic bombs, nuclear tests, etc. are a more likely culprit than me taking home groceries in a plastic bag...gimme a break. Not saying we should disrespect the planet, but i do think its ridiculous for the government to blame it on the people. Oh wait, they have to or we won't buy these carbon credit things!
Anyone who is foolish enough to listen to Al Gore should read a bit of info...and maybe discover that he owns the largest carbon credit company in the world...just waiting to cash in...
He uses more junk than the average person, but oh it's okay because he offsets it with carbon credits....
Silly!
So, we see that the problem isn't even defined, and the proposed remedy won't do shit all to help the environment...how are "carbon credits" going to make the grass greener and water cleaner?
Anyone else smell bullshit?
Oh and props to Jagged Edge for trying to be a minority voice. Its hard to say anything not mainstream, and people should be commended for trying. I for one agree with you man!
JaggedEdge, opening up debate is one thing....saying that you are right and factually enlightened and that everybody who disagrees is WRONG, end of story, is just plain arrogant and irritating. I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to know the truth about this one way or the other, but I do know that there are enough major scientists who DO maintain its existence for it to be just dismissed as ideological bullshit.
Both sides have valid points, and you can't just ignore the scientific minds who are concerned with the impact mankind is having on the earth. You accuse everybody else of close-mindedness and ideological filtering, and yet every issue is adjusted for your hardcore libertarian stance. I'm a libertarian myself in many ways, but I'd like to think that exercising a little pragmatism might be healthy every now and then.
You can find many distinguished scientists claiming it to be nothing but horseshit, and you can find many claiming the contrary. The issue is not simply a political fabrication, though I concede it has been exploited to a degree for political ends. Way I see it, if we go with the people who claim it's true, the worst-case scenario is we have a cleaner world and less money in the short term. If we bury our heads in the sand and it turns out to be true, the worst-case scenario is we have a shattered earth and a global populace that slowly descends into food rioting and massive turf wars where water and bullets are the only currency. That may sound dramatic, but it's not.
"No evidence"....what? By that you mean no evidence that you can accept, which differs from there in fact being no evidence. But nevermind, you're right....everything's fine. The biggest mass extinction of species also has nothing to do with us--it's been going on forever, right? If there's an apparent link between our explosion in population and deforestation and the deprecation of species, it's just political bullshit. Even if you're right and it is in fact a fabrication, come on....you must realize that sooner or later this will all catch up to us, even if it hasn't already. A pre-emptive detox doesn't sound so evil to me.
I asked specifically for them to provide specific sources. I have yet to see any. Why should I not dismiss it as pure bullshit when the supporters can't even bother to find facts that aren't easily repudiated?Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
Simply because some scientists conclude Al Gore isn't a loon doesn't make it true. Scientists have stated many things that simply aren't true and never came to be true. I'm not ignoring them, I looked at their "facts," looked at the oppositions "facts," and ultimately concluded there is NO empirical evidence to support global warming, much less man made global warming.Quote:
Both sides have valid points, and you can't just ignore the scientific minds who are concerned with the impact mankind is having on the earth.
Hell, if they can find scientists to back penis enlargement pills and techniques, why can't they find ones to back global warming. Penis enhancement, aside from out-patient surgery isn't currently available, yet there have been those who claim some bullshit product or another will increase your dick size by an inch.
Wrong. How many issues have I discussed on this board? Yes, I agree with Libertarian views on a majority of issues, hence classifying myself as a libertarian. My views are the reason I consider myself that, not the other way around.Quote:
You accuse everybody else of close-mindedness and ideological filtering, and yet every issue is adjusted for your hardcore libertarian stance. I'm a libertarian myself in many ways, but I'd like to think that exercising a little pragmatism might be healthy every now and then.
As I have said before, I have looked at both sides, and it is clear I AM RIGHT. If new "evidence" were to be presented to me I would view it with an open mind, however, seeing as their is no new evidence, I'm still right.
Isn't it? We have Al Gore as a figurehead. They use it as a means to make money through taxes as well as (in Gores case) their own Carbon Offset Companies, not to mention personal investments in other "green" companies. Read previous posts in this topic for the specifics on this.Quote:
The issue is not simply a political fabrication, though I concede it has been exploited to a degree for political ends.
Wrong. Worst case scenario is we run companies into the ground with this Cap and Trade bullshit while making non-industrial nations rich in the process, resulting in the prices of our goods going up.Quote:
Way I see it, if we go with the people who claim it's true, the worst-case scenario is we have a cleaner world and less money in the short term.
For something I might add (carbon) that isn't actually a problem!
Again, you are completely wrong. Your scenario is plausible for global cooling, unfortunately your logic is extremely flawed. Vegetation loves warm temperatures and survives off of carbon! How would increased temperatures cause food riots? As for water, if the ice caps were truly melting, wouldn't water be in more abundance? I love how water is suddenly this rare thing... 70% of our planet is water.Quote:
If we bury our heads in the sand and it turns out to be true, the worst-case scenario is we have a shattered earth and a global populace that slowly descends into food rioting and massive turf wars where water and bullets are the only currency. That may sound dramatic, but it's not.
No, it is virtually the same evidence for both sides. The global warming side however takes a portion of a graph to prove it's point. All evidence is not equal. Some is manipulated for a purpose, which is easily proven in this case.Quote:
"No evidence"....what? By that you mean no evidence that you can accept, which differs from there in fact being no evidence.
Again, I'm going to ask for sources, but don't expect to receive any. Considering we are continuously discovering new species and have been for years, is it not logical to assume we simply are more accurate in recognizing species going extinct? Species have been, and will continue to go extinct, the only reason it appears it's happening at a more rapid pace is because we have discovered far more of them. Someone else could articulate this point far better than I can, so please do.Quote:
The biggest mass extinction of species also has nothing to do with us--it's been going on forever, right?
Yup, your right, it's bullshit. The Native Americans saw the benefits in deforestation long before the white man began eradicating entire forests. The trees, in many places in North America are not native to the states in which they are found. The Native Americans burned forests in order to improve their grasslands as well as the hunting of game. Forests grow back. As to deforestation for construction, there are still vast parts of the earth that haven't been massively colonized, including a vast majority of the U.S.Quote:
If there's an apparent link between our explosion in population and deforestation and the deprecation of species, it's just political bullshit.
Again, I don't understand this argument in the least. If their assumptions were wrong and their evidence is illogical and/or manipulated, what reason is there to suggest the outcome they predict will ever occur? It is basic cause and effect, if you can't identify the correct cause, what credibility do you have to predict the effect?Quote:
if you're right and it is in fact a fabrication, come on....you must realize that sooner or later this will all catch up to us, even if it hasn't already. A pre-emptive detox doesn't sound so evil to me.
Oh no!
The greenies have hacked NASA's Satellite imagery!!!
The following can't be true!!!
NASA - Satellites Show Arctic Literally on Thin Ice
:thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldeSkule
Wow.
So....I guess this is conclusive proof, ice melts. Pat yourself on the back.:thumbsup: Explain how this in any way supports man made global warming?
I will not hold my breath waiting for an answer LOL, or one that makes sense. The arctic ice melts, every year. It says that in the article. The new ice is "thin", no shit! Do you realize their have been periods in earths history that there has been 0 arctic ice? This was prior to the combustion engines existence. I suppose that even then, it was due to man made global warming though LOL. OR, just maybe, it's part of natural cycles that our climate would be going through, whether we inhabited this planet, or there were millons of herds of alien cattle roaming the plains. It's funny how human nature tells us that we MUST have controll over our environment, it's all because of us.
Like I said, love to hear how that proves anything other than, yes, ice melts.:wtf:
Didn't NASA spend $38 million on a moon rover that had less parts than a Jeep... not a reliable source of information IMO :jointsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by OldeSkule
But this is interesting... spraying the atmosphere to reduce global warming :thumbsup:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI[/YOUTUBE]
Again they are looking at satellites for the last 30 years, that isn't a large enough period of time to say what it means. If you can't look at 30 years of data and conclude we are causing it.Quote:
Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced today that this winter had the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-2009).
Taken from icecap.us
I don't think anyone is arguing ice caps in some regions are melting, we are simply saying it isn't the end of the world. It also isn't this global trend they want you to believe. Climate fluctuates differently throughout the planet.Quote:
Braithwaite in 2002 in a paper ??Glacier mass balance? in the Journal Progress in Physical Geography reveals ??there are several regions with highly negative mass balances in agreement with a public perception of ??the glaciers are melting,?? but there are also regions with positive balances.? Within Europe, for example, he notes that ??Alpine glaciers are generally shrinking, Scandinavian glaciers are growing, and glaciers in the Caucasus are close to equilibrium for 1980-95.? And when results for the whole world are combined for this most recent period of time, Braithwaite notes ??there is no obvious common or global trend of increasing glacier melt in recent years.?