Dagger147 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Interesting read: Global Warming Is Not a Crisis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krawhitham Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 we put a hole in the god damn Ozone layer, do you honestly believe that will not have consequences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 So the question is do we die off as a human species or does the planet die first? That is the race we all face. Global Warming is certainly real and people have recognized polution and it's problems for decades, but won't we just end up dying out? We should try to prolong that death as long as we can by being green, by being mindful, but i think we screwed ourselves a long time ago. We are naturally destroying our planet. I want to know why it has become an issue now. The facts have been here for 50 years, but we start acting now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_jefe061 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 That article Rickel posted is a load of bs. In the first two paragraphs they already they already take something out of context. In no way is the article implying we should tax for breathing. No where in the NY Times does it state that we should limit humans from breathing, as it is a process from nature. It's only talking about reducing artificial processes that produce CO2, such as cars. This right wing trash tries to spin it to where it appears the article is saying that, and the writer is stepping over the line saying this. In no way is this article relevant or intelligent. Just because this blogger has a pretty site does not make him legit in any form, nor intelligent or credible. And once again, the emissions from cars and power plants are not 100% CO2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krawhitham Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 pretty much everything rickel2 says is 100% pure BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickel2 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 answer = globalization. years ago, when nations were sovereign, most didn't think in terms of global issues, but national ones. with globalization, we all become one big "happy" world. things like nafta, and the european community have helped that process along. the question then becomes who runs the global show. it would have to be something beyond washington if it's global. then who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickel2 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 my opinions are not very popular here. by the way kraw, thank you so much for the mvp 07 update. it is great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickel2 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 it was never my desire to offend. if i did, i truly apologize. i know one thing for sure, and that is that love never fails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_jefe061 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I want to know why it has become an issue now. The facts have been here for 50 years, but we start acting now? I see your point, but the thing is we shouldn't stop even if we are late. Also, the idea that "we're prolonging" our ultimate fate shouldn't apply to this. It's not like the Earth would suddenly just explode, it would be a long slow process if we didn't do anything about it. If we do our part, then we'd be living in a better world; it's not all or nothing. The thing about Americans is that we don't need to drastically change our lives, we just need to consume a little less. Little things here and there; no one's saying abandon your cars and lawnmowers, just recycle more, consume a little less, and small things that add up over time. If you had 200 Million people doing this, it would make a huuuuuuuuuuge difference. A great example of how much Americans consume is this figure: Americans, together, spent 17 Billion dollars on PET food. What would happen if we took, say, 7 billion dollars of that and gave it to a third world country? This is just PET FOOD. Think about consuming less in the rest of your lives and what kind of effect that would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campo09 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Rickel- are you joking, 3 straight post, theres an edit button. Anyways, I would like to see the scientists for and against global warming go against each other in a debate, it would be interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger147 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Another interesting read: From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campo09 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 very interesting article and i like how someone stepped foward instead of being a coward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 very interesting article and i like how someone stepped foward instead of being a coward.A coward? Is that what all those scientists are supposed to be? Besides, what does it matter who's causing it? Campo, you said it yourself that you agree that it's happening. If it wasn't us causing it, does that mean you would suddenly stop caring about what humans do to the enviornment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I certainly think we should do everrything in our power to wrong the rights, I just hate the fact taht people are reacting now. Where have ya'll been. I am proud of Gore, but I am also pissed that he's just now making this an issue when he no longer has to appease the political world. He may have been for a greener way 20 years ago, but he had a career to protect and I fault him for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_jefe061 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 People seem to miss the fact that whether they believe it's happening or not, whether it's an upcoming catastrophe or not, pollution is not a good thing. We're not just pumping CO2 into our atmosphere, there's other things we put out there. If everyone did a small part, we'd be in a lot better shape and our world would be better to live in, Global Warming or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroEric Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I am proud of Gore, but I am also pissed that he's just now making this an issue when he no longer has to appease the political world. I don't really begrudge him this -- when you get to Washington, you pretty much have to get on the merry-go-round or go home. It's interesting to observe retired politicians like Gore and Clinton and even GH Bush to see how relieved they look to not have to take part in that system anymore. --Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lautrec Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Whether "global warming" is real or not, whether it can be proved that there is a negative effect on the earth due to so-called "global warming" or not.....I can't help but think that getting "greener" is a good thing. I'm not really the type to buy into the Al Gore "Doom and Gloom" crowd, the old "Sky is Falling" rhetoric, but I do think that it shouldn't be all that hard to become more responsible with our environment, preserving a better place for future generations. I don't think that building cleaner running cars, and cleaner burning systems is bad. I think that is good. I think we should do that anyway. It's not too hard to see that if you chop down all the trees, and NEVER replant them, then you're gonna have some troubles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lautrec Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I don't really begrudge him this -- when you get to Washington, you pretty much have to get on the merry-go-round or go home. It's interesting to observe retired politicians like Gore and Clinton and even GH Bush to see how relieved they look to not have to take part in that system anymore. --Eric I'd say ou got this one nailed. We can all hate Gore and Clinton, and W Bush, and whoever, but would any sane person REALLY want that job? I cannot imagine the stress and just crazy compromising that takes place there. It's a circus, and you either jump in with both feet or you end up like Jimmy Carter with nothing to show for your time there. Say what you will, but JFK, Nixon, Reagen, Bush I and II, and Clinton have all left their various marks. Whatever your opinion of them, they left marks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_jefe061 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Whatever your opinion of them, they left marks. Some were good, some were bad. In Clinton's case, one of them was a stain. I'm trying to decide whether or not to post this. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickel2 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 me again. the world is polluted in many varied ways. it's nice to look at taking care of the environment, but doesn't that include more than CO2? what about harmful things in our food like nutrasweet, splenda, cloned vegetables and fruit, chicken and beef laced with hormone and anti-biotics? what about chemtrails, big pharma pills that harm and kill, depleted uranium, herbicides, teflon, flouride, etc. on and on. super size us with poisoned foods and additives to make us want to eat more. where do you start? and, where are the politicians when it comes to these things? where is the outcry? why don't they speak about these things and their harmful effects. things that harm us every day. heaven forbid that the corporations would be challenged by the government. nobody really cares for peoples' lives. that's a tough pill to swallow, but it's true. if someone should die from the above, well then, it's good for population control. to me human life is to be valued. not so in this world. yes lautrec, the only true reality is Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_jefe061 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 That's been my point too. Where was this movie talking about what else is in Car emissions? Or what else comes out of power plants? I was reading about Jeremy Papelbon the other day, and it talked about how he almost died when Vioxx he was taking for knee pain caused internal bleeding. Kind of goes along with what you're saying about pills and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickel2 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 cancer and diabetes are rampant. sadly, they have become industries in their own right. and it's not just about global warming. you can bet your bottom paper, worthless dollar on that. there's a sucker born every day and... we are him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger147 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Livestock’s long shadow Livestock impacts on the environment From the above article: A new report from FAO says livestock production contributes to the world's most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Using a methodology that considers the entire commodity chain, it estimates that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroEric Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 So does this insinuate that the environmentalists should come out and say, "Okay, we can keep factories and car emissions the way they are if we all become vegetarians." Because I think that would go over pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger147 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 I'm not insinuating anything. I posted this to show that man is not solely responsible for "global warming". Other factors need to be taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.