Pages: 1 2 3

 

Poll

Should the environmental measures being suggested be enacted?

Yes - all of them61%61% - 46
Yes - some of them (please list which ones)17%17% - 13
Unsure6%6% - 5
No14%14% - 11
Total: 75
2007-03-18 16:25:27
PureFodder
Member
+225|6733

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I vaguely remember a story about a coastal liberal housing complex that got all bent out of shape because plans were in motion to set up power generators offshore. They complained that it "obstructed their view". So, easier said than done.
Ted Kennedy was involved in that, specifically. It'd be a lot more accurate to say that some rich bastards complained because it would obstruct their view but all someone has to do is say "Ted Kennedy" and suddenly it's "liberals" stopping the development. I realize it gets beaten into peoples' heads constantly, but Ted Kennedy and the rest of his contemporaries that stopped the construction of that wind farm are about as liberal as I am Catholic.

acsman50 wrote:

Nice reference to lemmings. It's recently come to light that scientists were in fact wrong about the idea of lemmings commiting mass suicide if their migration path has been interrupted. A majority of scientists wrong, hmm....
No, actually you would be wrong. Scientists haven't ever really believed that in any kind of majority.

AR-News: Scientists Find Lemmings Die as Dinners, Not Suicides

Do Lemmings Commit Suicide?

Apparently most of the supposition that lemmings commit mass suicide is due to a Disney nature film called "White Wilderness", during the filming of which lemmings were physically thrown off cliffs or into the water, to make them look like they were killing themselves.

Urban Legends Reference Pages: White Wilderness

So, the majority of scientists were actually right that they didn't commit suicide. However the predominant meme held by most regular people that lemmings commit suicide was wrong. A belief held by a majority of people reinforced by repetition and through "entertainment" wrong, hmm...
Everyone keeps mentioning the `majority of scientists`.

Something leads me to believe there never have and never will be that many scientists researching lemming deaths.
2007-03-18 17:03:14
HunterOfSkulls
Rated EC-10
+246|6727
From what I understand, quite a few were. The second link references a book that mentions the study of lemmings regarding how populations of certain small animals regulate their populations and how much effort is put towards understanding the mechanics of that regulation. Though in this case and that of climate change, it would be more accurate to say "a majority of scientists in the relevant field".
2007-03-18 17:28:49
liquix
Member
+51|6902|Peoples Republic of Portland

vedds wrote:

explain why environmental change is neccesarily bad?
Changes in global temperature equal changes in ocean levels. We as a global society rely on the ocean levels not rising by multiple feet. Say perhaps if ocean levels rose 10 feet, you can say goodbye to millions of acres of land and millions of lives.

To those who say people have no effect on the earth, have you ever experienced industrial production? I would think not. Anybody who has ever been around toxic chemicals, large scale industry, farming, logging, and any other goods producing industry knows that what we do effects the earth. I don't advocate stopping building, but pushing for efficiency and environmental friendliness in production saves money...and that's really what matters to the nay sayers. As soon as it becomes cheaper to be green, everybody will be doing it. Hell, look at how much it already saves to drive a hybrid car.
2007-03-18 18:45:48
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7123|Canberra, AUS
I am truly amazed at this.

"DESPITE YOUR OPINION ON GLOBAL WARMING."

Do you honestly think that because some people think these measures should be enacted to avert a possible catastrophe, that means you are morally exempt from undertaking them?

GJ on making me lose faith in the human race.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-03-18 18:48:53
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7214|Cambridge (UK)
Yes. All of them.
2007-03-18 18:52:25
Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6793|Twyford, UK

acsman50 wrote:

theelviscerator wrote:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=global+warming+swindle
There you go lemmings.
They have british accents while explaining, so perhaps its sounds more believable to you.
LOL!
Nice reference to lemmings. It's recently come to light that scientists were in fact wrong about the idea of lemmings commiting mass suicide if their migration path has been interrupted. A majority of scientists wrong, hmm....
Recently. Scientists. Pah. Do you know NOTHING? The myth was only popular because Disney herded thousands of the little fuckers off cliffs to get the footage of it.

Also, this global warming crap is a pack of lies. Sure, we should switch to renewables for the most part, but not for OMGamrageddon reasons; merely that they're sorta finite.
The quibbling over 'no solar panels in my yard!11!!!11' can easily be solved by placing large sections of them in space, and sending the power back with microwave transmission. Inefficient, but when you've got no restrictions on space, who cares?
'Clean' coal is entirely possible. Current coal-fired power stations are perfectly clean, and only vent steam into the atmosphere from the water system. Any pollutants are removed and sold to chemical companies.
Water recycling means conserving THAT is also stupid. Closed system; you want more water, desalinate it.
2007-03-18 18:52:32
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7123|Canberra, AUS
@theelviscreator: Are you going to back up your statements or not? Because it seems to the other 80% of us that you're just spouting random drivel.

BTW, according to the solar-output studies, they can only account for a maximum 30% of global warming factors. Not nearly enough to convince me (source: wiki). Oh, and, I don't think increasing cloud cover exactly helps.

Last edited by Spark (2007-03-18 18:56:27)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-03-18 19:13:26
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6977|Global Command

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

Ted Kennedy and the rest of his contemporaries that stopped the construction of that wind farm are about as liberal as I am Catholic.
That would have to mean you have some new-fangled definition of what a liberal is.

I understand Kennedy is a establishment type, I but see a opened  portal into the shadowy workings of the uber leftist and I'd just like to ask you to define what you consider a American liberal to be.
2007-03-18 21:41:22
HunterOfSkulls
Rated EC-10
+246|6727

ATG wrote:

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

Ted Kennedy and the rest of his contemporaries that stopped the construction of that wind farm are about as liberal as I am Catholic.
That would have to mean you have some new-fangled definition of what a liberal is.

I understand Kennedy is a establishment type, I but see a opened  portal into the shadowy workings of the uber leftist and I'd just like to ask you to define what you consider a American liberal to be.
It's not just the "establishment type" thing. It's the elitist, old money, clinging to his material wealth like he'll be able to take it with him to the next life when his liver finally gives out, one set of rules for him and one for everyone else shit. The politicization of climate change is almost as much the fault of himself and Gore as it is the fault of people who propagate the whole "global warming is a plot of socialist eurofagz who hates the US and is jealous of us" meme. He's a typical politician; he's only as liberal as he can afford to be without reducing his capacity to get votes/money.

As far as definitions go, I don't have one other than the dictionary one. I just get tired of the appalling ignorance of people who continually refer to moneyed American aristocracy as "liberals". Or worse yet, "commies". None of those fuckers would have anything to do with me or anyone like me and they know it; they pander to the average/center-left at best. Feel-good bullshit legislation like Assault Weapons bans and "Don't Ask/Don't Tell(and don't protect)" and non-binding resolutions. Fuck 'em; liberals want change, politicians want stagnation and the preservation of the status quo, plus preservation of their affluence and power.
2007-03-19 04:43:02
acsman50
a cut below the rest
+7|6975|Northern Ireland
Skorpy-chan wrote:
'Recently. Scientists. Pah. Do you know NOTHING? The myth was only popular because Disney herded thousands of the little fuckers off cliffs to get the footage of it.'

Please Skorpy, try to read beyond wikipaedia. The myth has been around for at least a century. Inuit tradition may have been the origin but it was being mooted by Peter Hudson during his study of animal populations in the Arctic in his 1953 report. It has also been re-approached in more recent times, such as 2003 when a group of scientists, although fairly certain that it was nothing more than a myth, still considered it noteworthy during further investigations into population fluctuations. Disney's film in 1958 certainly propogated the myth but was certainly not the origin.

Most recently a New Scientist article laid the myth to bed once and for all. This means that at the very least the majority of scientists accepted the possibility without bothering to investigate fully. I accept that the analogy is rather weak but not totally irrelevant.

Btw, try books occasionally, the Internet follows the maxim of GIGO. Not all garbage by any means, but you need to have alternative sources.

Last edited by acsman50 (2007-03-19 04:44:49)

2007-03-19 18:35:48
jonsimon
Member
+224|6943
Fuck global warming, what happened to the environmentalist initiative from the 90s that advocated the EXACT same measures? Being clean and EFFECIENT justifies ITSELF.
2007-03-19 18:38:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6853|North Carolina

jonsimon wrote:

Fuck global warming, what happened to the environmentalist initiative from the 90s that advocated the EXACT same measures? Being clean and EFFECIENT justifies ITSELF.
I suppose if you could convince business leaders that this would save them money in the long run, then they might comply.  Good luck getting them to look for the long run (or convincing them of savings).
2007-03-19 18:39:22
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|7141
Alternatives to the slash-and-burn techniques used in many developing nations for deforestation

Maybe we could just NOT cut down the trees at all?
x
2007-03-19 19:05:42
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7214|Cambridge (UK)

Superior Mind wrote:

Alternatives to the slash-and-burn techniques used in many developing nations for deforestation

Maybe we could just NOT cut down the trees at all?
WHAT!?! That's way too radical an idea!
2007-03-19 20:26:14
theelviscerator
Member
+19|6736

Spark wrote:

@theelviscreator: Are you going to back up your statements or not? Because it seems to the other 80% of us that you're just spouting random drivel.

BTW, according to the solar-output studies, they can only account for a maximum 30% of global warming factors. Not nearly enough to convince me (source: wiki). Oh, and, I don't think increasing cloud cover exactly helps.
Would it really matter if they were backed up?

You have already drunk the global warming koolaid.

You are done.
2007-03-19 22:20:18
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7123|Canberra, AUS

theelviscerator wrote:

Spark wrote:

@theelviscreator: Are you going to back up your statements or not? Because it seems to the other 80% of us that you're just spouting random drivel.

BTW, according to the solar-output studies, they can only account for a maximum 30% of global warming factors. Not nearly enough to convince me (source: wiki). Oh, and, I don't think increasing cloud cover exactly helps.
Would it really matter if they were backed up?

You have already drunk the global warming koolaid.

You are done.
Because generally opinions sound a bit better if they're backed up. Or are you trying to dodge the fact that you've just made this up?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-03-20 17:22:50
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

theelviscerator wrote:

Spark wrote:

theelviscerator wrote:


Would it really matter if they were backed up?

You have already drunk the global warming koolaid.

You are done.
Because generally opinions sound a bit better if they're backed up. Or are you trying to dodge the fact that you've just made this up?
Now that I have found out you are 14 years old I really dont want to discuss this with you.


You havent a clue about anything really. Really, you don't.

By the time you are 24 you will realize everything you thought at 14 is rubbish, and so on.

Get back with me once you are grown. Till then back to your cartoons and cereal and milk.
Do you actually have any arguments? Or are you just spouting hot air and hurling abuse at people based on their age. I'm 6 and I'm positive I understand the situation better than you.

How about some sources and/or some credible information at least in some way based on science?

Something like one of topal63's posts, with properly cited credible sources would be nice, are you up to the challenge or are you all talk?
2007-03-20 19:12:05
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6853|North Carolina

theelviscerator wrote:

Spark wrote:

@theelviscreator: Are you going to back up your statements or not? Because it seems to the other 80% of us that you're just spouting random drivel.

BTW, according to the solar-output studies, they can only account for a maximum 30% of global warming factors. Not nearly enough to convince me (source: wiki). Oh, and, I don't think increasing cloud cover exactly helps.
Would it really matter if they were backed up?

You have already drunk the global warming koolaid.

You are done.
It could also be argued that you've drank the coolaid of the people who believe global warming doesn't exist or isn't related to our actions.

Dogma is a 2-way street.
2007-03-20 19:13:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6853|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

I'm 6 and I'm positive I understand the situation better than you.
Dude, you are the smartest 6-year-old ever.  LOL 
2007-03-20 22:12:37
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7123|Canberra, AUS

theelviscerator wrote:

Spark wrote:

theelviscerator wrote:

Would it really matter if they were backed up?

You have already drunk the global warming koolaid.

You are done.
Because generally opinions sound a bit better if they're backed up. Or are you trying to dodge the fact that you've just made this up?
Now that I have found out you are 14 years old I really dont want to discuss this with you.


You havent a clue about anything really. Really, you don't.

By the time you are 24 you will realize everything you thought at 14 is rubbish, and so on.

Get back with me once you are grown. Till then back to your cartoons and cereal and milk.
Orly?

Explain the situation to me then in scientific terms. Go on.

Nice way to argue, using personal attacks as an excuse not to actually argue your case.

Last edited by Spark (2007-03-20 22:16:46)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-03-20 22:32:47
Smithereener
Member
+138|6764|California
Even though I don't think that GW is a major issue that (I think) has been blown out of proportion, I still realize that if these trends are right, it will escalate into a huge catastrophe. So I'll say "yes" for most environmental acts.

Although I read somewhere (can't remember quite well, gotta look it up again) that the Kyoto Protocol isn't really that great of a plan to stop GW. Can't remember even the slightest bit why.
2007-03-20 22:40:01
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6853|North Carolina
America basically watered down the Kyoto Protocol to the point of making it useless.  Then, we had the nerve to still refuse to commit to it, even though it didn't really require much of us.

The central problems to setting environmental regulations on an international level are that industrializing nations obviously won't willingly improve their methods of production because of their focus on improving the standard of living, and the already industrialized nations are usually so corporate that their biggest contributors to pollution are often the ones who put their politicians into power (through financing their campaigns and such).
2007-03-21 01:02:24
theelviscerator
Member
+19|6736
There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

When you figure that much out, you have to take into consideration the political causes driving EACH position.

Facts rarely have much to do with these kind of matters.

Global warming is not really about earth science as it is about politics and a push to a global one world government, where Big Brother has full control over all countries under its steel umbrella.

Look to Kyoto and tell me all the countries that have signed it, that are meeting the standards set in it.

Take Australia for example one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita and the home of some of the people arguing here.

If Kyoto is reducing GHG emissions so well why are we still going up?


If its not helping then why "should" it help?


This is mostly about politics and not science. End of Story.

socialism masked as green policies.
2007-03-21 01:12:40
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7003

theelviscerator wrote:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

When you figure that much out, you have to take into consideration the political causes driving EACH position.

Facts rarely have much to do with these kind of matters.

Global warming is not really about earth science as it is about politics and a push to a global one world government, where Big Brother has full control over all countries under its steel umbrella.

Look to Kyoto and tell me all the countries that have signed it, that are meeting the standards set in it.

Take Australia for example one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita and the home of some of the people arguing here.

If Kyoto is reducing GHG emissions so well why are we still going up?


If its not helping then why "should" it help?


This is mostly about politics and not science. End of Story.

socialism masked as green policies.
Wow. This guy is a real paranoid livewire. The commies are coming to get us ... ! PS Australia is the only country apart from the US NOT to sign Kyoto.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-21 01:13:42)

2007-03-21 02:01:49
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|7094
I'm all for the environment. I just don't get all hippy about about it.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard