Are we REALLY killing our planet?

GreyICE said:
I link you to the graph of the sea ice melting more and more and more. You tell me there's no effects.
Click to expand...

What are the effects? I live on the beach. So the ice has melted. Sea levels haven't risen. I can see the sea! It's the same as it's been for years!

You know what? I agree. I'm done talking to someone who takes the word of a bible thumping senator supported by a bevy of industrial interests over scientists,
Click to expand...

Again, read the **** posts. I never said I took his word. I used him as an example of someone who questioned the media, because I think they should be questioned. There. You made me retype something. Good job. Please read the ****ing posts before you spout off.

and who thinks that there's no effects when I link him effects.
Click to expand...

Your links were a graph showing TEMPERATURE. You didn't link effects. You're not even paying attention to your own posts now. Besides, I'm not impressed by your links. I used to work in budget: graphs can show anything you want them to!! All you have to do is make the x axis longer.Here are some graphs that clearly show the temperature's been dropping. Then some more that show it's spiking. Sure the planet's getting warmer right now, but to claim it's because I drive to work is arrogant. My carbon emissions don't help, but hairspray causing hurricanes? Seriously?

GreyICE, you hit the nail on the head with your sensationalist media comment.
 
MikeSun5 said:
What are the effects? I live on the beach. So the ice has melted. Sea levels haven't risen. I can see the sea! It's the same as it's been for years!
Click to expand...

Dude... I never saw any effects from Union Carbide's plant management. That didn't make Bhopal harmless, capiche? You're highly unscientific survey of 'looking at the beach' doesn't quite cut it and... no... I'm just done here.
 
GreyICE said:
Can tell that you're trying to actually consider different opinions and ideas instead of prostelizing :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

All you've done is misrepresent my statements and remain totally oblivious to context. Prosetylizing has religious connotations, which you have been religious about attributing to me. Knock it off, strawman. Take your tree-hugging anti-religious fervor and use it on an anti-environmentalist religious person. You're barking up the wrong tree.
 
MikeSun5 said:
All you've done is misrepresent my statements and remain totally oblivious to context. Prosetylizing has religious connotations, which you have been religious about attributing to me. Knock it off, strawman. Take your tree-hugging anti-religious fervor and use it on an anti-environmentalist religious person. You're barking up the wrong tree.
Click to expand...

You linked me to Inhofe. Inhofe is a bible thumping idiot. He quotes the bible in frikkin policy documents for pete's sake! I simply report facts, you claim I'm trying to link you to something?

You're paranoid, and in deep denial about some of your 'sources.'
 
GreyICE said:
You linked me to Inhofe. Inhofe is a bible thumping idiot. He quotes the bible in frikkin policy documents for pete's sake! I simply report facts, you claim I'm trying to link you to something?

You're paranoid, and in deep denial about some of your 'sources.'
Click to expand...

:bwall:bwall:bwall:bwall

You took that link out of context, similar to what zealots do with Bible quotes. The hypocracy in your posts is mind-numbing.

A simple presentation of your "facts" would suffice, but the insults, total disregard for things that were said, and constant misrepresentation of what others say (strawmen) make you sound like a religious fanatic - or at best a grouchy child.
If I predict that you'll post another false statement or simply another d-bag comment, I wonder if I'd be eligible for the JREF $1M challenge when you do it? That'd be a premonition, after all... :rolleyes:

Anyway champ, take your strawman army and go attack a different thread. You've killed this one. Mission complete.
 
I just checked the Al Gore doomday clock and we only have 6 years, 8 months, 5 days left to save the planet.
 
Cavemonster said:
That second article was written by this woman


If you have any experience reading short author bios, you'll notice that it left out any mention of any other publications, honors or most of the content that normally fills this space. Not that there's anything wrong with a homeschooling Grandma, just the lack of other credentials is clear.

Notice also that the article is over a year old and published in a journal that also contains articles on how healthy raw milk is.

The web is a big place, I can find articles and blog posts that misquote just about everything, and a lot of that will be due to the level of expertise of the writer.

The experts are in agreement. Mainstream news and science sources (published within the last year) are in agreement. It is important not to mistake popular confusion for scientific confusion.
Click to expand...
As I said, they were two of many links. You are correct in saying that the internet is vast and inaccurate information is abundant, but that doesn't mean it isn't believable to the general audience. Fox News is considered a news source by the media, but that doesn't make the information they report correct.

As for the consistency of the reported size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, NOAA http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/patch.html#4 appears to have the right answer.
 
Last edited:
MikeSun5 said:
You took that link out of context, similar to what zealots do with Bible quotes. The hypocracy in your posts is mind-numbing.
Click to expand...
What context? You linked me to Inhofe. If you wanted a serious discussion, you could have chosen, I dunno, a scientist. I pointed out your source has the expertise and reliability of a bran muffin, and you took offense.

What context are we in? Idiots in the Senate? I can link you to quite a few.


A simple presentation of your "facts" would suffice, but the insults, total disregard for things that were said, and constant misrepresentation of what others say (strawmen) make you sound like a religious fanatic - or at best a grouchy child.
If I predict that you'll post another false statement or simply another d-bag comment, I wonder if I'd be eligible for the JREF $1M challenge when you do it? That'd be a premonition, after all... :rolleyes:

Anyway champ, take your strawman army and go attack a different thread. You've killed this one. Mission complete.
Click to expand...
No, you killed this one, by preaching instead of discussing. You could have discussed things rationally. You linked me to Inhofe and expected me to take you seriously.

If I came here, told you aliens existed and were speaking to me, and then demanded you treat my information as generally valid, would you think me rational? Because Inhofe is about as reliable as voices in my head. I mean have you even looked at the man? Global warming deniers don't even like using him anymore, he's too out there to rely on him not to start spouting off on Genesis like he did with Israel.
 
AGW probably will kill millions....eventually. Not too smart of us to establish so much of our civilization on the presumptuous notion that sea levels and climate are stable.

That said, if Toba couldn't kill us off I doubt AGW will.
 
GreyICE said:
You could have discussed things rationally.
Click to expand...

Rationally?? You mean with insults and strawmen arguments? You seem to be incapable of rational discussion. I feel like I'm in that Monty Python skit with the argument clinic.
 
MikeSun5 said:
Rationally?? You mean with insults and strawmen arguments? You seem to be incapable of rational discussion. I feel like I'm in that Monty Python skit with the argument clinic.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to accomplish here? Do you wish to be the voice of reason? That would be so much easier for you if you were reasonable. Do you think that if you call my arguments personal insults and strawmen they will become personal insults and strawmen, instead of commentary on the quality of your discourse?

You can think what you want, but your constant need to self-defensively paint me as some terrible aggressor and you as some innocent victim in a Monty Python skit instead of addressing what I'm saying (you've never even commented on why I'm supposed to believe that fanatic Inhofe, much less explained that link) leaves us all cold.

My underlining the childishness and pathetic qualities of this victim line should show how much it hurts. Take a cue from Whiplash - he used to spend most of his time outraged and offended, until it became banal. Now he's a decent poster.

You can work past outraged too. In any case, this is my last effort here. If, by now, you really don't understand how pathetic this self-righteous outrage is, and how pathetic an excuse it is for the poor quality of your 'facts' and 'reasoning,' I really cannot explain it to you further. You yourself have not explained away the lack of quality, beyond 'gee, it's really mean of you to point out I have no rational argument or reliable sources.'
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
without Governments intervention Capitalist companys will not take care about Nature, even less than we do today. Its only after several disasters that governments actually do something. Companys do not care, they only care about profit, and taking care about nature is a problem when you only focus on profit.
Click to expand...

However there are a growing number of companies persuing ecologically sound processes as a marketing tool for their products.
 
MG1962 said:
However there are a growing number of companies persuing ecologically sound processes as a marketing tool for their products.
Click to expand...

Silicon Valley has been transitioning itself from software development to "green tech research" for almost five years now. This has been happening purely as speculation to this point and it will probably pay off handsomely. Smart capitalists try to adapt if they see the winds changing.
 
MG1962 said:
However there are a growing number of companies persuing ecologically sound processes as a marketing tool for their products.
Click to expand...

yes as Marketing tool. but not becuase they really care, just because its a good tool to make more money.
 
MG1962 said:
However there are a growing number of companies persuing ecologically sound processes as a marketing tool for their products.
Click to expand...

It may be more accurate to say there are a growing number of companies pursuing ecological "sounding" processes as a marketing tool for their products.

Electric cars replace carbon emitting gasoline with carbon emitting coal at the power plants and extremely toxic batteries that we don't have a good way to dispose of yet.

Compact florescent lightbulbs last longer and use less electricity but are also highly hazardous as waste.

An awful lot of "green" branding is simply greenwashing, either trumpeting a very minor improvement (such as "green" bottled water that use slightly less plastic) or trading one environmental hazard for another.
 
Cavemonster said:
It may be more accurate to say there are a growing number of companies pursuing ecological "sounding" processes as a marketing tool for their products.

Electric cars replace carbon emitting gasoline with carbon emitting coal at the power plants and extremely toxic batteries that we don't have a good way to dispose of yet.

Compact florescent lightbulbs last longer and use less electricity but are also highly hazardous as waste.

An awful lot of "green" branding is simply greenwashing, either trumpeting a very minor improvement (such as "green" bottled water that use slightly less plastic) or trading one environmental hazard for another.
Click to expand...

Could i write proper english, that would be what i wanted to say with my last post :)
 
GreyICE said:
It's a good thing that you are smarter than a group of assembled international experts who examined this issue in great detail.

They say millions will die if projections continue. You're sure we'll be fine. I know who I trust - and it ain't the guy who has done about no research.
Click to expand...



Here's a much more accurate, tested prediction, by an economist, which is who you want to talk to when discussing the future of the human condition.

Basically, the human condition will continue to improve with the protection of private rights, including property, from both lawlessness and overbearing government intervention, with a minimum granularity of 10 years, and preferably somewhat more.


So if "millions" die, it will be because governments got in the way, or were unable to stop local warlords from ruling, or were themselves oppressive.

I can no longer watch the old PBS rendition of Lathe of Heaven without seeing that their long term, chronic condition of want is the result, in the long term, not of the constant rain, but of government rationing preventing capitalism from rising to the occasion to provide more and more food until the shelves are crammed.



In any case, a billion or so moving inland a little over the course of a century or so, barely indistinguishable from normal housing development, is not damaging. However, global cooling, especially if it induces an ice age that comes on within a few years, as is the current thinking for ice ages, IIRC, will indeed kill billiions.



So, to sum up:

  1. "Worst" of global warming is so protracted as to be almost unnoticeable
  2. Government rationing and severe interference trying to save the situation will be far worse than the worst of global warming
  3. For example, in 50 years, air conditioning went from expensive luxury to almost omnipresence in the US. What, then, 100 years or more in an even more powerful economy?
  4. The reverse, sudden onset of an ice age because of amelioration attempts, is truly murderous
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom