Environmental rant

Whillst a man has become a powerfull extinction agent, we know about 5 major extinction events in earth history in which as much as 90% of marine and in some other about 70% of terrestrial specieses was wiped out.
Eventually new emerged and took over, some other survived and changed.
There is also lots of minor extinction events, such as end of megafauna about 10000 years ago. (Actually this one partly atributed to a over hunting.)
Hence global extinction on earth is nothing new, it happened before, and it eventually will again.
How much we contribute is another question, but I suspect that "back to the nature - on the farm without electricity" wont work anymore and that what a shock wasnt even very ecologic aproach.
Nor will it help to stop drink the cofee or alcohol.
(Or stop using chopstick - they are after all made mostly from bamboo, which is fast renewable source.)

Using renewable sources, going from fosill fuel to atom and alternative energy sources can help for a while...

Actually did looked on some maps and it looks like my country is actually as forested as it never was since 14. century or so, because sufficient food can be produced from very little agricultural land.
 
humans have separated themselves from nature, and continue to do so.


My point exactly! Just becasue we have "separated" ourselves doesn't mean we are not a part of nature.


I got the point of the rant. I simply disagree with it.

How can you disagree with how I feel? I am offended by people no better than me critisizing me. A case of the kettle calling the pot black. Let he without sin cast the first stone. Perhaps it was some of my specific example you disagree with, although for the most part it comes down to your personal philosophy. Remouve any species from nature and nature changes. You say it is bad, but is it really bad? Changes and extinctions have occured throughout history long before man arrived on Earth. The current mass extinction is no worse than the K-T extinction. Humans ARE nature, and anything we do is natural. We are currently the dominant species here. If it were not us, it would be something else, and that something else would alter the environemt. These alterations may kill what is here now, but new conditions will give way for new species to evolove. Really, the only thing human are hurting are humans.


making a change starting in your community and beyond is far more effective than a quick fix of venting.


Of course. I agree with you. But my aim was not to fix anything, it was to vent. And I do my best to educate those around me, but it is hard to explain it to people that have never studied, or really been in nature.
 
... I don't have the time or patience for that debate... I am interested in knowing why you personally think temperatures are rising right, however.

Good. I don't have the time, nor the patience to explain it to you since your mind is made up. A hint though. Check the pole positions, the sun, and the ice core records.

Codger
 
Will said:
How can you disagree with how I feel?
I don't. didn't say I did. sorry for being a critic. ;)

edit:
Codger_64 said:
Good. I don't have the time, nor the patience to explain it to you since your mind is made up. A hint though. Check the pole positions, the sun, and the ice core records.

Codger
I don't think I've heard a scientist attribute even half of global warming to those things, but how does that explain the last 50 or so years?
 
Just to throw a little water on the fire, here, and yet remain reasonably relevant, a quote I found interesting:

It has only been in the last few hundred years that we humans have become disconnected with our life force. And as a consequence, our perception of our place in nature has deteriorated to the point that we are systematically destroying our environment and ourselves. Yet, ironically, by taking a step back in time, it is possible to take an immense step forward in understanding. While we do not believe it is possible to return completely to the old ways, we do believe that once a person experiences the excitement of creating fire by ancient methods, molds a piece of the earth into a functional vessel of beauty, builds shelter using what nature provides, or experiences first-hand any of the life skills of our ancient ancestors, he or she will understand the vital alliance we all have with our past and our environment. (Richard and Linda Jamison – Woodsmoke introduction – ISBN# 0-89732-151-0)

Ahhhhhh. OK, round 2..............

Doc
 
Global Warming Fallacies

Human-caused global warming advocates have based their propaganda campaign on several false premises:

The planet is already heating up. The historical record shows that global temperatures are not unusually warm today... This data, which is similar to many other studies of various world locations by means of experiment and of the historical record, shows a period of higher temperatures 1,000 years ago, and a period of lower temperatures 300 years ago.

World climate was so benign in this earlier warm period that it has long been referred to as the "Medieval Climate Optimum." So, even when the Earth was much warmer than today, none of the predicted catastrophes of the supposed human-caused global warming occurred.

During the past 300 years, the Earth has been recovering from a period of relatively low temperatures known as the "Little Ice Age" and is now back to approximately the 3,000-year average. But even during this period of recovery, the Earth (as already indicated) experienced a cooling trend from about 1940 to about 1975 sufficient to spark fears of catastrophic "global cooling." In truth, both during and before the industrial age, the temperature has always changed season to season and century to century.

The increase in temperature is being caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. If this fallacy were true, then most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 would have occurred before most of the increase in temperature. Yet, as Figure 2 clearly shows, most of the temperature rise from the late 1800s to today (less than 1degree C) had already occurred by 1940, before most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 had taken place. Since the cause cannot occur after the presumed effect, this means that the increase in CO2 could not have caused the temperature rise.

CO2 is a pollutant being spewed into the atmosphere by human industry and activity. Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the single most important chemical constituent of the cycles of plant and animal life (see "A Greener Future" on page 25). All plant tissues are built from atmospheric CO2, and all plants and animals produce CO2 in the fundamental respiratory processes that permit them to exist. It has been definitively shown by many hundreds of experimental studies that increases in atmospheric CO2 cause increases in the amounts and the diversity of plant and animal life.

Yes, human activity does release CO2 into the atmosphere, but the amount, including what we exhale, must be kept in perspective. The atmosphere contains about 750 gigatons of CO2, but the oceans contain about 40,000 gigatons. Ordinary rises in world temperature increase atmospheric CO2 through out-gassing from the ocean that has nothing to do with man?s industrialization. In fact, there is not a shred of experimental evidence demonstrating human-caused global warming.

The computer models reliably show that the Earth's temperature will increase dramatically over the next century. The entire argument for this long-term forecast of catastrophic global warming is based on flawed computer projections produced and touted by United Nations operatives and their retainers and friends. In science, theory must be verified by experiment. These computer models have had a low level of reliability in the past, and there is no reason to expect that the same models will be any more accurate in the future.

The UN computer models are flawed in several ways: The data are inaccurate; the adjustable parameters are too numerous; the uncertainties in the computed values are large and poorly defined; and, most importantly, key assumptions regarding the "science" of global warming do not conform to experimental observations.

CO2, by itself, is not a significant greenhouse gas, and there is no scientific evidence that it can raise global temperatures significantly. However, the UN computer models assume not only that an increase in CO2 will cause a small increase in temperature, but that this small temperature increase will cause more evaporation from the oceans, and that the increase in water vapor (a highly significant greenhouse gas) will greatly multiply the effect of the CO2. This amplified effect is the basis of human-caused global warming claims. The problem with this is that the Earth has already demonstrated that it does not happen. The historical record shows that the Earth has, in the recent past, been much warmer than could ever be achieved by a CO2 greenhouse effect. Since water evaporation during those warm periods did not cause catastrophic global warming, there is no chance that CO2 could do so.

But why doesn't the "science" work as global warming alarmists theorize it should? And why can't any CO2-induced global warming be detected? An important factor is the complexity of the atmosphere, which, experimental evidence shows, is a self-correcting chemical system. It follows the principle of LeChatelier, who discovered this self-correcting property of chemical systems about a century ago. (This principle is explained in most introductory chemistry texts.) In short, LeChatelier?s effect has reduced the consequences of CO2 warming to such a low level that they are below the limits of detection by modern techniques.

A consensus comprised of nearly all scientists agrees that humans are causing a global warming crisis. Not only is there no such "consensus," but, if anything, the situation is opposite from what the global warming alarmists claim. When one of the authors of this essay (Dr. Arthur Robinson) briefly circulated a petition opposing the Kyoto treaty among American scientists, he received, by first class mail, about 17,000 signatures. The petition stated:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.


With more resources for printing and mailing, probably 50,000 signatures could have been obtained from American scientists. The signatories included Dr. Frederick Seitz (past president of the National Academy of Sciences), who wrote a cover letter for the petition, and a long list of America's most accomplished scientists. (For a complete list of the signatories, two-thirds of whom hold advanced degrees, go to www.oism.org/pproject.)

The solar energy reaching the Earth from the sun has absolutely nothing to do with the Earth's temperature! Of course, the global warming alarmists would not say anything so transparently silly. What they do instead is simply pretend the sun does not exist, at least so far as the Earth's temperature is concerned.

But there really is a relationship between the solar activity of the sun and the Earth's temperature, and historical measurements bear this out. ..From 1750 to the present, the Earth's temperature oscillations have closely tracked the changes in the intensity of the sun. In short, the data makes quite clear that the ordinary warming and cooling cycle of the sun is the primary controller of global temperatures and that this cycle is currently in an upward trend...

(Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, a professor of chemistry, is the founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and editor of the newsletter Access to Energy. Dr. Jane Orient, a specialist in internal medicine, has a private practice and is the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/06-14-2004/science.htm

This is just one published article that lays out the basics.

Codger
 
Codger,

I am behind you 100%, thanks for laying out the info.

i will simply add support by saying this:

We are smack dab in the middle of two Ice-ages. the one that happened about 10k yrs ago, and the one that will happen that much farther in the future. SO it is supposed to be warming up right now. if the planet were colling, then really that would beg a bigger explanation.
There isn't enough coal&oil on the planet, to raise the temperature more than a degree or so.
One major volcanic eruption can cool the planet by 2 degrees due to the particles in the atmosphere.
What then? Ban Volcanoes?

Where is the Big OL hole in the OZONE over Antartica!!!??????
Yep, back in the 80's all the chicken Littles were screaming about that nasty OZONE hole, that was eventually gonig to cover the earth, we were going to have to build underground to escape the cosmic rays!

Well, it seems the only cosmic rays were coming from the brains of the so-called environmentalists as the Big Bad Ozone Hole has shrunk and is now almost gone.

We are in an era where a few decades ago we couldn't even measure such things. Even temperature records which have been kept back int othe 1800's are suspect based on bad thermometers, bad method, and lack of calibration.

I think it is important to stop pollution, raise awareness, plant more trees, and be responsible to our environment. No argument here.
But the pseudo-science and scare tactics are NOT the way to do it.

If you make the problem larger than life, and portray it to be of catasptrophic proportion, you actually achieve the opposite of your goal, you get large numbers of people shrugging their shoulders because it's just too big to comprehend.

When it comes to global warming, what do want them to do?
Stop driving their car? Go without electricity?
When you think of the entire industrialized world, it's just not going to happen.
 
the only species that I can think of that would be effected would be species created by humans and species we already wiped out that nature conservists are ttrying to save in locked cages. they could be gone in the blink of an eye. survival for everything else would turn into a war of native species vs. introduced species. with either victory, cities would start to be overrun with plants within 10 years. birds would further spread the plant life. birds of prey and feral "ppl pets" would have a blast. many streets will collapse after metals corrode. eventually animals would move in after natural water sources returned. cockroaches would die out or close to it. rats would die out or close to it. many plant and animal species would begin to revert. large animals such as bears and wolves would move into cities in the north. buildings start crumbling within 50 years. forests would regrow. rain forests. jungles. probly within a couple hundred years, maybe less. carbon dioxide would be nearly gone within 200 years which would cool the atmosphere, and within 50 years after that the ozone would strengthen. most bridges would collapse within a few hundred years. the strongest within a thousand years. after some thousands of years nearly all buildings with few exceptions would leave almost no signs of their existence. even heavy metals and toxic substances would be flushed out. in any event, flooding and glaciers would probly move thru parts of the US again and grind up what's left eventually.

I don't know what science you base this on. I know scientists have far more trouble predicting what will happen 10 years from now with current trends. No one would be so sure about what would happen if a major species were to suddenly go extinct as you are.


the world would go on without humans. quite healthily. if humans hadn't taken over there would be over twice as many 1000 lb animals in the Americas as there are in Africa today. bears twice the size of grizzlies. toxodons bigger than rhinos. sabre-toothed tigers. dozens of horse-like species. camel-like species. giant armadillos, beavers, peccaries, wooly rhinos, mammoths, and mastodons. just as today all of us on this forum agree that humans are now generally weaker individuals than back in the day, not able to survive like us on this forum and many others who take preparation seriously. and so have humans historically weakened other animals. I thought it was generally accepted that mass extinctions coincide with the proliferation of humans.

As others pointed out, mass exctinctions have been going on long before Homo sapiens arrived on the scene. Sure, we are currently inducing the current extinctions, but again, the ecosystem would be vastly different if humans are removed.


oh, I dunno. cities and other civilizations? intellect? irrational behavior? McDonalds? space flight? tool steel? waterproof jackets? submarines? culture? taking over every continent not named Antarctica? etc. apparently you missed my point, actually. we, on the survival forum, are the minority. you're dreaming if you think otherwise. humans have separated themselves from nature, and continue to do so.

Flooding by beavers building dams, the savanah not turning into a forest because of elephants knocking down the trees, chimps building tools to fish out termites, wolves colonizing virtually the entire northern hemisphere... We are not as different from other animals as it may seem. We find our strength in our numbers and dexterity, and have thrived because of it. It doesn't make us seperate from the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans are the ones that believe we are different and simply believing something doesn't make it true. To a polar bear, we are just another potential meal.


I'm rolling my eyes here. trees can't go to the pharmacy and buy antibiotics. silly and unfounded huh? AKA you don't personally care or agree. there is an in-between level here. there is no "stab a tree and it dies" and "stab a tree and nothing happens" debate. there is a chance it opens a tree for infection. just like a human. noone said it will definitely happen. tho you seem to be saying it definitely wont. which is wrong. c'mon man. I've seen it happen. I don't know how anyone who spends time in the woods could have not seen an infected tree.

I'm rolling my eyes too. The tree is not an isolated entity. Humans are not the only things that can cause damage to a tree. Trees have ways to deal with damage. Doesn't always work, but if it never worked, there would be no trees.

But about taking dead and down versus something living... You probably never noticed the abundance of life that is dependant on the tiny little ecosystem created by dead and down wood. Take that wood away, and you have removed a vital ecosystem to lots of creatures. Maybe you don't consider that disrespectful. So you see, respectful behaviour is a matter of opinion.


they do not remove quite "all" understory plants, tho I'm sure you didn't mean that literally. and the point you're missing, is it leaves the rainforest in tact. which in nearly every other industry, it would all be cut down. gone. completely. stripped bare. understory to canopy and everything else. coffee plantations are probly the worst example that could've been used. he went with it only 'cause he knew a lot of ppl drink coffee. not 'cause it was @ the top of the list for rainforest destruction. a tree didn't die for your kona. confession: I don't drink coffee.

I suggest you take a lesson on biodiversity before saying that shade coffee plantations leave forests intact.

Considering that Will's rant was about the "kettle calling the pot black", the coffee example seems like an appropriate one because no one needs coffee, yet people drink it in huge amounts for the pure enjoyment of it (and for their caffeine fix).


I got the point of the rant. I simply disagree with it. this is like me getting so fed up with my constantly drunk and drugged up partying neighbors that I start throwing parties and drinking 30 cubes and smoking weed and snorting cocaine to deal with it. and you're invited!

making a change starting in your community and beyond is far more effective than a quick fix of venting. yeesh. should I apologize for disagreeing and choosing not to lie? maybe I should've just pumped my fist and told him to start a blog.

yeesh. no need for the "with us or against us" attitude. I'm being friendly. really!

It still seems like you didn't get the point of the rant.

Will said:
I am sick to death of armchair environmentalists bitching about me cutting down 1 tree in the middle of a forest, or complaining about cutting branches off trees, or sticking knives in trees to take pictures. These people need to grow up, think about what they are saying, and take a serious look at their lifestyles.

He doesn't mention that they should change their lifestyle, but only that they should open their eyes and look at themselves before judging others.
 
Codger_64 said:
Global Warming Fallacies

Human-caused global warming advocates have based their propaganda campaign on several false premises:

The planet is already heating up. The historical record shows that global temperatures are not unusually warm today... This data, which is similar to many other studies of various world locations by means of experiment and of the historical record, shows a period of higher temperatures 1,000 years ago, and a period of lower temperatures 300 years ago.

World climate was so benign in this earlier warm period that it has long been referred to as the "Medieval Climate Optimum." So, even when the Earth was much warmer than today, none of the predicted catastrophes of the supposed human-caused global warming occurred.

During the past 300 years, the Earth has been recovering from a period of relatively low temperatures known as the "Little Ice Age" and is now back to approximately the 3,000-year average. But even during this period of recovery, the Earth (as already indicated) experienced a cooling trend from about 1940 to about 1975 sufficient to spark fears of catastrophic "global cooling." In truth, both during and before the industrial age, the temperature has always changed season to season and century to century.

The increase in temperature is being caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. If this fallacy were true, then most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 would have occurred before most of the increase in temperature. Yet, as Figure 2 clearly shows, most of the temperature rise from the late 1800s to today (less than 1degree C) had already occurred by 1940, before most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 had taken place. Since the cause cannot occur after the presumed effect, this means that the increase in CO2 could not have caused the temperature rise.

CO2 is a pollutant being spewed into the atmosphere by human industry and activity. Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the single most important chemical constituent of the cycles of plant and animal life (see "A Greener Future" on page 25). All plant tissues are built from atmospheric CO2, and all plants and animals produce CO2 in the fundamental respiratory processes that permit them to exist. It has been definitively shown by many hundreds of experimental studies that increases in atmospheric CO2 cause increases in the amounts and the diversity of plant and animal life.

Yes, human activity does release CO2 into the atmosphere, but the amount, including what we exhale, must be kept in perspective. The atmosphere contains about 750 gigatons of CO2, but the oceans contain about 40,000 gigatons. Ordinary rises in world temperature increase atmospheric CO2 through out-gassing from the ocean that has nothing to do with man?s industrialization. In fact, there is not a shred of experimental evidence demonstrating human-caused global warming.

The computer models reliably show that the Earth's temperature will increase dramatically over the next century. The entire argument for this long-term forecast of catastrophic global warming is based on flawed computer projections produced and touted by United Nations operatives and their retainers and friends. In science, theory must be verified by experiment. These computer models have had a low level of reliability in the past, and there is no reason to expect that the same models will be any more accurate in the future.

The UN computer models are flawed in several ways: The data are inaccurate; the adjustable parameters are too numerous; the uncertainties in the computed values are large and poorly defined; and, most importantly, key assumptions regarding the "science" of global warming do not conform to experimental observations.

CO2, by itself, is not a significant greenhouse gas, and there is no scientific evidence that it can raise global temperatures significantly. However, the UN computer models assume not only that an increase in CO2 will cause a small increase in temperature, but that this small temperature increase will cause more evaporation from the oceans, and that the increase in water vapor (a highly significant greenhouse gas) will greatly multiply the effect of the CO2. This amplified effect is the basis of human-caused global warming claims. The problem with this is that the Earth has already demonstrated that it does not happen. The historical record shows that the Earth has, in the recent past, been much warmer than could ever be achieved by a CO2 greenhouse effect. Since water evaporation during those warm periods did not cause catastrophic global warming, there is no chance that CO2 could do so.

But why doesn't the "science" work as global warming alarmists theorize it should? And why can't any CO2-induced global warming be detected? An important factor is the complexity of the atmosphere, which, experimental evidence shows, is a self-correcting chemical system. It follows the principle of LeChatelier, who discovered this self-correcting property of chemical systems about a century ago. (This principle is explained in most introductory chemistry texts.) In short, LeChatelier?s effect has reduced the consequences of CO2 warming to such a low level that they are below the limits of detection by modern techniques.

A consensus comprised of nearly all scientists agrees that humans are causing a global warming crisis. Not only is there no such "consensus," but, if anything, the situation is opposite from what the global warming alarmists claim. When one of the authors of this essay (Dr. Arthur Robinson) briefly circulated a petition opposing the Kyoto treaty among American scientists, he received, by first class mail, about 17,000 signatures. The petition stated:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.


With more resources for printing and mailing, probably 50,000 signatures could have been obtained from American scientists. The signatories included Dr. Frederick Seitz (past president of the National Academy of Sciences), who wrote a cover letter for the petition, and a long list of America's most accomplished scientists. (For a complete list of the signatories, two-thirds of whom hold advanced degrees, go to www.oism.org/pproject.)

The solar energy reaching the Earth from the sun has absolutely nothing to do with the Earth's temperature! Of course, the global warming alarmists would not say anything so transparently silly. What they do instead is simply pretend the sun does not exist, at least so far as the Earth's temperature is concerned.

But there really is a relationship between the solar activity of the sun and the Earth's temperature, and historical measurements bear this out. ..From 1750 to the present, the Earth's temperature oscillations have closely tracked the changes in the intensity of the sun. In short, the data makes quite clear that the ordinary warming and cooling cycle of the sun is the primary controller of global temperatures and that this cycle is currently in an upward trend...

(Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, a professor of chemistry, is the founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and editor of the newsletter Access to Energy. Dr. Jane Orient, a specialist in internal medicine, has a private practice and is the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/06-14-2004/science.htm

This is just one published article that lays out the basics.

Codger
we could go back and forth citing references and links all day. I was just interested in your opinion.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. not @ all. I'm just placing different value on it.

Changling said:
I don't know what science you base this on. I know scientists have far more trouble predicting what will happen 10 years from now with current trends. No one would be so sure about what would happen if a major species were to suddenly go extinct as you are.
I'm not sure (this is the 3rd time I have had to indicate otherwise in this thread) and never told anyone I wrote the bible on extinction. I was trying not to turn this into a link-fueled argument.

that stuff isn't difficult science tho. what did I say that you found far-fetched? it would be easier to discuss that way. we've already seen this to an extent.


Changling said:
As others pointed out, mass exctinctions have been going on long before Homo sapiens arrived on the scene. Sure, we are currently inducing the current extinctions, but again, the ecosystem would be vastly different if humans are removed.




Changling said:
Flooding by beavers building dams, the savanah not turning into a forest because of elephants knocking down the trees, chimps building tools to fish out termites, wolves colonizing virtually the entire northern hemisphere... We are not as different from other animals as it may seem. We find our strength in our numbers and dexterity, and have thrived because of it. It doesn't make us seperate from the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans are the ones that believe we are different and simply believing something doesn't make it true. To a polar bear, we are just another potential meal.
that is not comparable to modern mankind, in my opinion. and it is true. humans are different. a low human IQ trumps any other species on the planet. I don't agree with the mentality or separating yourself from nature, but it's there.



Changling said:
I'm rolling my eyes too. The tree is not an isolated entity. Humans are not the only things that can cause damage to a tree. Trees have ways to deal with damage. Doesn't always work, but if it never worked, there would be no trees.
you're twisting and turning, man. I'm not angry @ him for sticking a knife in the tree. I'm not going to form a union and picket lightning strikes. yeesh. why does everything have to turn into an argument and a "we're right you're wrong" thing?


Changling said:
But about taking dead and down versus something living... You probably never noticed the abundance of life that is dependant on the tiny little ecosystem created by dead and down wood. Take that wood away, and you have removed a vital ecosystem to lots of creatures. Maybe you don't consider that disrespectful. So you see, respectful behaviour is a matter of opinion.
you ought to be giving me my lottery numbers.



Changling said:
I suggest you take a lesson on biodiversity before saying that shade coffee plantations leave forests intact.
:thumbup:

Changling said:
Considering that Will's rant was about the "kettle calling the pot black", the coffee example seems like an appropriate one because no one needs coffee, yet people drink it in huge amounts for the pure enjoyment of it (and for their caffeine fix).
right.



Changling said:
It still seems like you didn't get the point of the rant.
:rolleyes:


Changling said:
He doesn't mention that they should change their lifestyle, but only that they should open their eyes and look at themselves before judging others.
and I was trying to get him to rethink his approach and material. for some reason you guys think there is something wrong with doing that instead of patting him on the back.

we're all right. we're all wrong.
 
and... kukucachoo I am the walrus :rolleyes:

What I was refuting was what YOU posted here as established scientific fact. I showed (yes with a link to a scientific paper to show that it was not just my opinion) that what you posted is not fact but theory. And in places, weak theory at best that the facts refute.

Michael
 
Codger_64 said:
and... kukucachoo I am the walrus :rolleyes:

What I was refuting was what YOU posted here as established scientific fact. I showed (yes with a link to a scientific paper to show that it was not just my opinion) that what you posted is not fact but theory. And in places, weak theory at best that the facts refute.

Michael
you're a revolutionary, Codger. :D
 
Here's a 400-thousand year perspective on the link between CO2 levels and how warm the planet is:

CO2_and_Temp2.gif


When it comes to global warming, what do want them to do?
Stop driving their car? Go without electricity?
When you think of the entire industrialized world, it's just not going to happen.

You're absolutely right - ain't no one going to stop this train 'till it runs off the tracks by itself. There's 6 billion people riding this train - we'll just keep on keeping on - until we can't.

I used to get upset about it - couldn't wrap my head around something I thought was eternal, like the seasons of autumn and winter, changing. But part of survival is accepting things as they are - and moving on. So that's what I've done - I didn't make the circumstances of a collapse of our civilization and I'm not going to be able to change them. But I'm going to live and die by those circumstances - and I'll do it with eyes wide open.
 
Tequilla por favor. Beer gives off harmful gas. Tequilla just givem me gas.:thumbup:
 
I'm not sure (this is the 3rd time I have had to indicate otherwise in this thread) and never told anyone I wrote the bible on extinction. I was trying not to turn this into a link-fueled argument.

that stuff isn't difficult science tho. what did I say that you found far-fetched? it would be easier to discuss that way. we've already seen this to an extent.

Well, you seem to be completely oblivious to the impact humans have on the ecosystem and see things in a rather simplistic way. Maybe it's just the way you expressed it.


that is not comparable to modern mankind, in my opinion. and it is true. humans are different. a low human IQ trumps any other species on the planet. I don't agree with the mentality or separating yourself from nature, but it's there.

A cat is different from a fish.


you're twisting and turning, man. I'm not angry @ him for sticking a knife in the tree. I'm not going to form a union and picket lightning strikes. yeesh. why does everything have to turn into an argument and a "we're right you're wrong" thing?

You were talking about what is considered respectful, and I was responding to that. Damn these long posts, they always end up going out of context.


Well, enough with this thread for me. I can go on and on about environmental stuff (I study ecology) so I better get away before this eats up my time.
 
Back
Top