chadman I appreciate the open mindness, some people just can open there ears or eyes to objectively decipher information. Blindly being one sided is almost always wrong. I agree with your thoughts about the impact we have on the planet and our need to address it.
Global warming is a scam
- Thread starter RAYMOND
- Start date
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
So you need to open your ears or eyes and stop thinking like POLITICALLY CORRECT CHADMAN.
:142smilie
:director: its not man's fault, its a complete fabrication people, geez, I can't believe you people believe the bullshit. Its nature nothing else, man is not the cause, who says the earth is really warming, its been the coolest Ocotber in years, hell its snowing in early October in Minnesota, when are you people going to wake up that you are being duped into believeing in false science
They think you're OPEN MINDED if you agree with their position, maybe they're the ones that need to be open minded.
JMHO.
Does man impact the environment? All living beings do to some slight factor. We ARE the environment of this planet. However, there is little proof that man of the last 100 years is impacting global warming - or now, since we've started cooling, global climate change. Some questions are - do you think the earth has ever been at a state where there were neither cooling or warming trends? Some greater than others? Is man changing the enviornment a bad thing all the time? Are other animals and plants that change the environment bad as well? Should we stop them all? Things like the Red Wood forests would not exsit if ancient man had not repeatedly burned large areas of california in order to clear brush to plant, resulting in stronger and stronger seeds that eventually became these beautiful forests. Everything we do has an impact in some shape or form. Wheather it is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure animals died off as a result of the change to the enviornment and fires that created these forests. Sucks for them, good for the people who enjoy the redwoods today. Is today's environment superior or inferior to the earth's environment 3000 years ago? Or, is it just naturally evolving and just different. Environmentalist nuts would have you believe:
1) If we make some radically expensive changes to our way of living, we will be able to avoid the earth's changing environment/ecosystem.
2) Man made changes to the environment are always bad. Unless...
3) Man's meddling in the ecosystem is a good thing as long as they are doing it in the name of "conservation" or the "environment." Preventing forest fires, restricting hunting, banning certain chemicals, etc, etc are good things that never have greater repercusions for man, animals and land.
4) Environmentalists know what the cause and all the effects are of the changes they would like to make.
5) Humans are an alien intrusion and secondary in importance to the environment rather than a part of it. Hence, the less human foot print on earth, the better for the environment.
6) Despite the earth being in constant change since its birth, right now at this precise point in time, the earth is perfect and we need to dedicate every resource we have to stopping the multi-million year trend of change to the environment.
They want to simplify things and say if we just cut this emission or that it will be better for all. They are trying to play god with no knowledge of what these painfully expensive changes will really reap - and no care for the decrease in human standard of living this will potentially cause. The results of their efforts have every possibilty of being worse for humans and worse for the environment as they do making them better.
Inovation will make these current issues no longer issues for humans in the future. This new inovation will create other unforseen "problems" that all self loathing environmentalists will fret about and blame themselves, greed, capiltaism, The US, etc for. Slime like Gore, etc will look to cash in on this self loathing and guilt with grave warnings about our wicked ways and radically expensive solutions that will line the pockets of people who proclaim themselves protectors of the environment. They will use scare tactics, guilt and shoddy scientific arguements to try and shame people into believing their way is the only way and if you oppose, you are a greedy capitalist who hates animals, parks and of course, mother earth.
Thats my 2 cents
Some good points, flapjack. There are definitely some self-serving "green" interests, to be sure, and many who look at this in the extreme, on the left. They are just as wrong to look at only one way, one answer, and use some of the info to play the blame game - to try to affect change. A lot like conservatives with the patriotic tilt to all wars, liberals with the no drilling anywhere ever, etc.
There is usually a middle ground, where common sense is more prevalent. You did call out most of the non-middle grounders of the issue, on the left side. Rightfully so, for the most part. One thing that causes me pause, though, is the innovation thing. When it comes to energy, there are plenty of self-serving forces doing everything they can to prevent innovation, to the point of spending a great deal of money to keep it from happening. Sometimes people have to force innovation short term, so it can GET to the long term. The status quo helps those it currently helps, but usually does not help those same folks long term. When those folks hold most of the cards, and have most of the control, innovation sometimes can't proceed in a normal manner.
There is usually a middle ground, where common sense is more prevalent. You did call out most of the non-middle grounders of the issue, on the left side. Rightfully so, for the most part. One thing that causes me pause, though, is the innovation thing. When it comes to energy, there are plenty of self-serving forces doing everything they can to prevent innovation, to the point of spending a great deal of money to keep it from happening. Sometimes people have to force innovation short term, so it can GET to the long term. The status quo helps those it currently helps, but usually does not help those same folks long term. When those folks hold most of the cards, and have most of the control, innovation sometimes can't proceed in a normal manner.
I agree with that. I was just attacking the wacko environmentalists in that post. There's alot of other issues on both sides. Some companies will always fight inovation for self serving purposes - short sighted. Smarter companies embrace inovation in their feilds and use their current position of strength in resources to lead the way and dominate - for their own benefit. It's a rare case where one company can stop something so large. Unless you are dealing with colusion or a monopoly, if it is the desire of the consumer, it will win out. Gov should only get involved if there is colusion or a monoply is doing harm to the consumer.
I have you on ignore and here is a good reason why. what is your position on global warming? you are probably one of the ones that think its real. Lets hear you opinion, I am all ears
there is no middle ground on this issue, its either real or fake. I believe its fake
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
You also don't know the difference between weather and climate. It's a simple concept, understandable by a 90 IQ person, but you can't handle it.
What you "believe" is based on ignorance.
You have him on ignore? Really? Then how do you know what he posted? LOL!
Hedge, there's dumb and dumber. You're dumbest.
:mj07:
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Hedgy's Ignore List
1. Kosar
2. Barrack Obama
3. Common Sense
4. Science
5. The Media
Please expand on this fascinating theory Hedgy. Let's forget that it contradicts accepted scientific theory and go with it. So then, why did the earth's warming kill the dinosaurs?
You're the hoax, hedge. The dinos and a thousand other species were killed when a huge meteor strike filled the atmosphere with dust for years, blocked out the sun and the plants which fed the dinos died.
Dinos loved warm weather since they were cold-blooded.
That's fact. You can, as they say, look it up.
Or you can continue to rely on faith. Faith based on non-facts.
Does your faith include 2+2=5? That's how faith-based reasoning works.
Here, hedge, educate yourself:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/weather
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climate
:mj07:
