Speaking of thorny issues

[Legacy Account]

I\'m not telling anyone how to spend their money.

Just pointing out the fact that your government (and mine!!) is blowing squillions (that\'s a technical term for \'shit loads\' ) of cash on a pretty pointless exercise.

Personally I\'d rather see my taxes spent elsewhere. And they will be in the not too distant future

 

[Legacy Account]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

...to point the finger squarely at America and take no blame yourself is merely lying to yourself. Last I checked the CO2 molecules weren\'t labeled \"From America with Love.\"

That\'s NOT what is being done. Countries worldwide are making serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions. It\'s frustrating however that the US seems ignorant to the fact that, per capita, it cranks out (CONSIDERABLY!!!) more than anybody else and seems even more reticient to do anything about it! China and India are rapidly developing - I\'m sure they\'ll overtake the US in carbon emissions at some point. Surely it\'s time to set an example?

Instead of seeing it as some sort of apocalyptic economy-destroyer, green energy could in fact prove to be a massive money spinner if US industry embraced it. The US should be at the forefront of developing new technologies and there are plenty of vast markets developing in places like India and China to send the stuff. It may be a way to keep the US economy afloat as these new economic super powers develop.

Perhaps it\'s just easier to continue making money out of selling weapons to the world.

 

[funnymouth]

@ED you are argueing against an environmental issue, by raising economic and political issues. two completely different topics.

statement: \"(human accelerated) global warming is happening\"
reply: \"but it cant be, it costs too much money\"

i am well aware of the magnitude of a billion. its a lot, but not really.

i was only using the \"tax\" example to illustrate how petty greed can be , relative to the whole. higher emissions standards would be just as good. or i could take a counter position to yours -tax the crap out of cars (big ones). what do i care, i dont have a car, i live in a town. its not my concern if a few people (wealthy enough to live in an area inaccessable to public transportation) pay more. its not a communest country, you PAY for what you get (even parking).

 

[Beelzebrush]

4x4\'s do seem to get an awfully bad rap. I sense it\'s more to do with perceived ownership tbh. I have a 2.5L Diesel Shogun 4x4 that since new (12 months ago) has covered the astronomical mileage of 4,500 miles. Does that make my carbon footprint massively bigger than someone who drives a small engine car that has covered the average annual mileage of about 10,000-12,000 miles?

Unfortunately (fortunately), I\'m in the position of needing said vehicle for towing heavy items such as diggers and other heavy plant.... my work also takes me off road.... tbh I\'d be f***ed with anything else. On the flip-side I plant an awful lot of trees and other plants annually as part of my job.... does that offset the vehicle... I dunno.

I\'m completely with Spacemunkie with regards to the government needing to offer grants, tax-relief to the installation of renewable energy such as solar power, wind/water power etc. Unfortunately, the usual response from government is to overtly tax a situation rather than offer sustainable solutions.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by funnymouth
@ED you are argueing against an environmental issue, by raising economic and political issues. two completely different topics.

statement: \"(human accelerated) global warming is happening\"
reply: \"but it cant be, it costs too much money\"

i am well aware of the magnitude of a billion. its a lot, but not really.

i was only using the \"tax\" example to illustrate how petty greed can be , relative to the whole. higher emissions standards would be just as good. or i could take a counter position to yours -tax the crap out of cars (big ones). what do i care, i dont have a car, i live in a town. its not my concern if a few people (wealthy enough to live in an area inaccessable to public transportation) pay more. its not a communest country, you PAY for what you get (even parking).

Wrong, my argument is that it is natural, however, if you feel that it is man made put your money where your mouth is, rather than demanding others do it for you.
I\'m merely showing the reasons so many will not do a thing. Personal economics is a situation near and dear to every individual.

Politics and science are two different things? Hah, stay in the field a few years longer and you\'ll start to see the line between them is very blurry indeed.

One could argue that higher emissions standards doesn\'t work nearly as well as simply holding on to a vehicle for a long time, since the energy and pollution involved in creating newer cars is worse than the cars emissions themselves. By continuously upgrading your vehicle every few years, you are using more material, causing more pollution, and using more energy. The best form of recycling is to keep using it as it is, as it generally consumes more energy to recycle an object than it does to use the raw materials.

Also your statement that those few people wealthy enough to live in an area inaccessible to public transportation is a fallacy.
Are you saying that everyone in the state of Alabama, Mississippi and other states are wealthier than those that live in California?
Cost of living is different in different areas.
Here in Louisiana I am making less than the average plant worker, yet am generally comfortable because I live below my means. Were I back in San Diego, making what I make now, I would be starving.
I am no wealthier than most on these boards, nor are many of my friends, yet we all live away from the cities, which are incredibly higher in living cost.
Also, not all states are willing to go into the horrible economic straits that California has been in for decades. In many cities of our country a car is still a necessity, as the public transportation does not exist on the scale where it would be feasible for the people to do away with them.

On a side note, I was looking at Population Density last night, and was wondering has anyone taken into account the land mass of the different countries.
What I\'m saying, is has anyone taken into account that while certain countries may have more carbon emissions per capita, does the sheer landmass of their country (and the plant life included) scrub more CO2 from the air, than say a smaller country with a higher population density and less landmass.

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Wrong, my argument is that it is natural, however, if you feel that it is man made put your money where your mouth is, rather than demanding others do it for you.

i thought i made it clear that i do.

I\'m merely showing the reasons so many will not do a thing. Personal economics is a situation near and dear to every individual.

it was not my intent to advocate any particular solution, merely to point out that it was a situation that required one.

Politics and science are two different things? Hah, stay in the field a few years longer and you\'ll start to see the line between them is very blurry indeed.

never said that. the two are inter-related, but that doesnt change the data

One could argue that higher emissions standards doesn\'t work nearly as well as simply holding on to a vehicle for a long time, since the energy and pollution involved in creating newer cars is worse than the cars emissions themselves. By continuously upgrading your vehicle every few years, you are using more material, causing more pollution, and using more energy.
The best form of recycling is to keep using it as it is, as it generally consumes more energy to recycle an object than it does to use the raw materials.

since emissions standards increased in the 80\'s and 90\'s air quality (and incidence of related medical problems) in major cities has improved. as far as money is concerned, the cost is very little.

\"the compliance costs for the
light-duty vehicle controls are expected to be very small, less than $1 per vehicle. These costs
are R&D and facilities costs that are expected to be recovered by the manufacturers over 10
years (completely recovered by 2019) and are not expected to be passed on in the form of higher
prices.\" (section 13: economic impact)
epa regulatory impact analysis, feb 2007

furthermore, the idea that continuing to use an older vehicle for longer to \"conserve\" is flawed.

Are you saying that everyone in the state of Alabama, Mississippi and other states are wealthier than those that live in California?

no, that was a jab


On a side note, I was looking at Population Density last night, and was wondering has anyone taken into account the land mass of the different countries.
What I\'m saying, is has anyone taken into account that while certain countries may have more carbon emissions per capita, does the sheer landmass of their country (and the plant life included) scrub more CO2 from the air, than say a smaller country with a higher population density and less landmass.

yup, those ideas (and many others) are certainly included in the concept of \"carbon neutral\" as far as policy is concerned. of course, the whole idea is rediculous, unless we reduce our emissions (a lot).

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by funnymouth

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Wrong, my argument is that it is natural, however, if you feel that it is man made put your money where your mouth is, rather than demanding others do it for you.

i thought i made it clear that i do.

Sure, to a point, but how far are you willing to go?
Are you willing to go to the point where it truly doesn\'t inconvenience you, but when it does say \"Oh, well, I\'m doing the best I can\"?
Far too many do and will.
I have a feeling that if it is Man-made, that the solutions will be far beyond a point where the majority of people will be willing to go.
Hell, most of the nations that did sign up to the Kyoto Accord fell far short of the goals set by that small inconvenience.
Heh, even if CO2 is the culprit, anything we do to cut ours will only drag out the inevitable as the earth itself produces far, far more naturally than we do.
So, I\'ll sit back and enjoy the ride, we\'ll probably get a good laugh out of this in 20 years.
One thing I do know, right now in Louisiana it\'s 40 degrees in a month that is usually in the 80\'s to 90\'s. If this is \"Global Warming\", I\'m sure am glad they were wrong about \"Global Cooling\" in the seventies. lol

 

[Legacy Account]

Originally posted by Beelzebrush
4x4\'s do seem to get an awfully bad rap. I sense it\'s more to do with perceived ownership tbh.

Absolutely right. Just an easy target for the government.

Must admit to having an innate dislike of anybody cruising around town in an X5 or Range Rover though.....

 

[Beelzebrush]

Originally posted by Spacemunkie

Originally posted by Beelzebrush
4x4\'s do seem to get an awfully bad rap. I sense it\'s more to do with perceived ownership tbh.

Absolutely right. Just an easy target for the government.

Must admit to having an innate dislike of anybody cruising around town in an X5 or Range Rover though.....

Well, I can\'t see the difference between a 4x4 and any other large engined car tbh. There\'s loads of cars with similar sized engines whose only purpose seems to be to go as fast as possible. It\'s not just an easy target for the government, it\'s also an easy target for the self-righteous whose lack of imagination demands a scapegoat.

 

[Talion]

Originally posted by Beelzebrush

Originally posted by Spacemunkie

Originally posted by Beelzebrush
4x4\'s do seem to get an awfully bad rap. I sense it\'s more to do with perceived ownership tbh.

Absolutely right. Just an easy target for the government.

Must admit to having an innate dislike of anybody cruising around town in an X5 or Range Rover though.....

Well, I can\'t see the difference between a 4x4 and any other large engined car tbh. There\'s loads of cars with similar sized engines whose only purpose seems to be to go as fast as possible. It\'s not just an easy target for the government, it\'s also an easy target for the self-righteous whose lack of imagination demands a scapegoat.

I think 4 x 4 get more rap becuase they automatically come with a bigger engine just to make the thing drive. But with the recent budget..........anything 2 litres or over will have a bill rise from next year. So all large engined cars will be caught in the same net.

 

[Beelzebrush]

Originally posted by Talion

Originally posted by Beelzebrush

Originally posted by Spacemunkie

Originally posted by Beelzebrush
4x4\'s do seem to get an awfully bad rap. I sense it\'s more to do with perceived ownership tbh.

Absolutely right. Just an easy target for the government.

Must admit to having an innate dislike of anybody cruising around town in an X5 or Range Rover though.....

Well, I can\'t see the difference between a 4x4 and any other large engined car tbh. There\'s loads of cars with similar sized engines whose only purpose seems to be to go as fast as possible. It\'s not just an easy target for the government, it\'s also an easy target for the self-righteous whose lack of imagination demands a scapegoat.

I think 4 x 4 get more rap becuase they automatically come with a bigger engine just to make the thing drive. But with the recent budget..........anything 2 litres or over will have a bill rise from next year. So all large engined cars will be caught in the same net.

... and how much of the additional revenue raised will be spent on green initiatives? I\'d wager it will be minimal.

I\'d like to see tax on airline fuel so as to end cheap air travel. It seems a ludicrous luxury given the panic over climate.

 

[vincegamer]

I think the 4x4 hatred is fueled by 2 factors.
1- they make driving difficult for people in small cars (plus the SUV drivers apparently have more accidents - excluding high performance vehicles - because they take more risks)

2- they are unnecessary to about 80% of users. You simply don\'t need to own one to drive the 5 miles to and from work every day on city streets (even if you do go camping once every 3 months - rent one as needed). For those of you who need them for your daily work, fine. It\'s the suburban office crowd that give them a bad rep.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by vincegamer
I think the 4x4 hatred is fueled by 2 factors.
1- they make driving difficult for people in small cars (plus the SUV drivers apparently have more accidents - excluding high performance vehicles - because they take more risks)

2- they are unnecessary to about 80% of users. You simply don\'t need to own one to drive the 5 miles to and from work every day on city streets (even if you do go camping once every 3 months - rent one as needed). For those of you who need them for your daily work, fine. It\'s the suburban office crowd that give them a bad rep.

I will say this: I absolutely hate the soccer moms who drive those huge Suburbans and cannot park them.
Every time I see one at the grocery store taking up two parking spots or parked all crooked, or not pulled up all the way blocking the lane I get absolutely pissed.
If you can\'t park it, don\'t drive it.

On a side note, it is rather amusing how many of my friends will gloat about how much money they\'re saving in gas, about how much my \"gasguzzler\" takes. (about $100 a month) Yet these are the same people who call me when it starts flooding and they need sandbags, or they\'re moving and need a big vehicle to haul their stuff, or they need to have their little car pulled out of the mud. I\'d say the little extra I pay in gas (very little compared to some) is well worth the price to wipe the smug smirks off their faces.

 

[Brimshack]

So, if a person does not engage in significant personal environmentalism while voting for laws promoting environmental causes, this makes them a hypocrit?

This does not follow.

If the claim that global warming is man-made (or exascerbated by man), and I understand you don\'t think it is Dave, ...but if it is true, then personal solutions are insufficient. You\'ve already said as much about legislation, A-fortiori mom and pop making personal decisions about hwat they drive or how they dump their trash. Those votes may or may not be wise, but the measure of the decision is not whether or not the individual in question has made x number of personal sacrifices before they went to the voting booth.

Yes, green friendly laws cost money. So, does war. So does building roads, space programs, schoos, etc. So do a lot of thing speople vote for all day long withut actively participating. I realize you have served in the military, but by your standards each and every person who has supported the war in Iraq without having served is a hypocrit. Every one of them. Could the war have happened without the support of people who have never seen combat? Frankly, by your standards the only people qualified to support that war are those who are actually fighting in it right now. By your standards, no one should vote for schools unless they have first spend money on the school houses themselves, vote for space unless first donating to space programs. And so on...

...all of which defeats the point of having governments in the first place. They are here because some things do require collective action, not personal devotion. Whether or not the environment is one of these things is a legitimate question. That question is not furthered by the symbolic blackmail that you use on this issue. A vote for green laws will cost the rest of us just as they cost you. A vote ought to reflect the best judgement of the voter, not the outcome of a personal history qualifying someone to vote in some ways and not others.

You raise legitimate questions about the actual phenomenon, and about the wisdom of many green measures. These are reasonable arguments; they are on topic, and they in many instances quite compelling. The endless litany about green hypocrisy is, however, gratuitous. It\'s easy enough to imagine the other side is saturated in hypocrisy, especially when you can pick and choose your examples from the whole range of behavior out there. The reverse is a easily claimed.

Frankly, I could do without the hatred.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Brimshack
Frankly, I could do without the hatred.

Hatred? Oh no, just a wry amusement with the foolishness of human nature.
Just a cynical view gathered after watching our governments and environmentalists past actions over the last few decades.

And your analogy to the gulf war and other issues are not quite right.

Global Warming is supposed to be world population threating problem. Famine, floods, epidemics, disasters of Biblical proportions, possible extinction of the human race, AND WE ONLY HAVE TEN YEARS !!!
Now if you truly believe this, then why, why, should I respect anyone who is spouting this, yet not doing their absolute utmost to prevent it? Why should you?

But don\'t let me rain on your parade, do what you want, do what you feel is necessary, do what makes you feel good.

 

[Brimshack]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Hatred? Oh no, just a wry amusement with the foolishness of human nature.
Just a cynical view gathered after watching our governments and environmentalists past actions over the last few decades.

Constant attacks on those you disagree with amount to hatred in my book. If you would prefer a different word, then so be it.

Originally posted by Evil DaveAnd your analogy to the gulf war and other issues are not quite right.

Fell free to elaborate.

Originally posted by Evil DaveGlobal Warming is supposed to be world population threating problem. Famine, floods, epidemics, disasters of Biblical proportions, possible extinction of the human race, AND WE ONLY HAVE TEN YEARS !!!
Now if you truly believe this, then why, why, should I respect anyone who is spouting this, yet not doing there absolute utmost to prevent it? Why should you?

If you\'re looking for an excuse to dismiss someone, I suppose this will do. You can certainly take a single claim made by some specific people in the environmental movement and hold everyone responsible for what you think the consequences of that claim should be. But of course by this standard, personal ethics are little other than token gestures. Should I personally recycle to prevent this? Should I buy a different car? That isn\'t doing the utmost to prevent it; by your own arguments those things won\'t even help. So, you demand that people do things completely insufficient to tackle the problem, as defined by you, and if they don\'t you hold them in contempt. If contempt is your goal, then so be it. But this is hardly a criticism.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Brimshack

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Hatred? Oh no, just a wry amusement with the foolishness of human nature.
Just a cynical view gathered after watching our governments and environmentalists past actions over the last few decades.

Constant attacks on those you disagree with amount to hatred in my book. If you would prefer a different word, then so be it.

And exactly who have I attacked? I\'ve attacked their ideas certainly, but then again what is the point of bringing up certain subjects, without hearing others opinions on it.

Originally posted by Evil DaveAnd your analogy to the gulf war and other issues are not quite right.

Fell free to elaborate.[/quote]
See below. Iraq is not being portrayed as an end of times phenomenon, Global Warming is.

Originally posted by Evil DaveGlobal Warming is supposed to be world population threating problem. Famine, floods, epidemics, disasters of Biblical proportions, possible extinction of the human race, AND WE ONLY HAVE TEN YEARS !!!
Now if you truly believe this, then why, why, should I respect anyone who is spouting this, yet not doing there absolute utmost to prevent it? Why should you?

If you\'re looking for an excuse to dismiss someone, I suppose this will do. You can certainly take a single claim made by some specific people in the environmental movement and hold everyone responsible for what you think the consequences of that claim should be. But of course by this standard, personal ethics are little other than token gestures. Should I personally recycle to prevent this? Should I buy a different car? That isn\'t doing the utmost to prevent it; by your own arguments those things won\'t even help. So, you demand that people do things completely insufficient to tackle the problem, as defined by you, and if they don\'t you hold them in contempt. If contempt is your goal, then so be it. But this is hardly a criticism. [/quote]
A specific few? Or the specific few that have the most access to the media, governing bodies and the such? The specific few that have millions hailing them as revolutionary leaders, that even if they don\'t quite believe what they say, well, it helps get the message across. Even if they don\'t live to the standards they preach everyone else should live by, it gets the message across. Even if they stand to profit from alarmism, it gets the message across.
From many people\'s point of view, the whole movement portrays the \"message\" as more important than the actual \"doing\".
There are many who vocally call for measures such as banning SUV\'s or requiring a carbon tax that have not thought through the dire consequences of these actions. Yet these people call themselves environmentalists. People calling themselves environmentalists drag us into courts every time we try to build levees to protect people. People calling themselves environmentalists protested nuclear power, preventing it from becoming our main power source. People calling themselves protesters killed hundreds of thousands by banning DDT\'s.
The wackos are the most vocal, so automatically get lumped with the moderates, and those actually trying to do good.
It\'s the way the world works, you are judged by who you associate with. Is it right? No, but that\'s the way it is.
Just as I, a conservative, get lumped with today\'s Republicans. Uh uh, we\'re completely different, but nobody cares.

Get rid of the wacko mouthpieces and the movement might be taken seriously by many, for their hypocrisy overshadows any good you may actually do.

I\'m all for greener more economical power, and fresh air for all, I don\'t see the loons, who are perceived as the heads of your movement, having the right answers at all.

See, I just gave you some very good advice, things that your movement can do, that would put more people like me leaning towards your movement, how\'s that for hatred?

I am not against being greener, like I said I live greener because I choose to. I am, however, against unnecessary legislature and governmental control. Which seems to be what the most vocal are calling for.
I am also against those that would use Global Warming as a status symbol, and I\'m sure all of you have met them.

 

[Brimshack]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
And exactly who have I attacked? I\'ve attacked their ideas certainly, but then again what is the point of bringing up certain subjects, without hearing others opinions on it.

To answer your first question, the objects of your attacks have been vaguely defined lists of environmentalists who do not act as you think they should. The second question is irrelevant. I have not objected to your ideas on global warming. I have even expressed a certain amount of respect for your views on the subject of global warming itself. What I have objected to is the rather persistant accusations of hypocrisy which you use to dismiss those with whom you disagree.

Originally posted by Evil DaveIraq is not being portrayed as an end of times phenomenon, Global Warming is.

Irrelevant to your initial charge of hypocrisy. You claimed that it was wrong to impose taxes on you when people do not perosnally invest on their own initiative. The war example, as the others, are sufficient to raise the same concerns. If hypocrisy is at issue in one it is at issue in the others.

Originally posted by Evil Dave
A specific few? Or the specific few that have the most access to the media, governing bodies and the such? The specific few that have millions hailing them as revolutionary leaders, that even if they don\'t quite believe what they say, well, it helps get the message across. Even if they don\'t live to the standards the preach everyone else should live by, it gets the message across. Even if they stand to profit from alarmism, it gets the message across.

Interesting elaboration. Do I then get to hold you responsible for the statements of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity? Does your lifetime of behavior stand or fall on its consistency with any statements I choose to pull out of their speeches? If you disagree with the 10 year timeline, then so be it. If you disagree with the hype behind it, then so be it. All the more rediculous to then use it as a standard from which to judge the actions of other environmentalists.

Originally posted by Evil Dave
From manys point of view, the whole movement portrays the \"message\" as more important than the actual \"doing\". There are many who vocally call for measures such as banning SUV\'s or requiring a tax that have not thought through the dire consequences of these actions.

The wisdom of these measures can be debated in terms of the measures themselves. It neither needs nor benefits from genealizations about the \"whole movement.\" The way someone lives his personal life is quite irrelevant to those measures. Personal devotion will not justify the measures, and lack of it does not prove them bad ideas. The wisdom of each such measure can be debated in its own terms. It does not benefit from generalized ad hominems and moral charactures of those on the other side.

Originally posted by Evil DaveYet these people call themselves environmentalists. People calling themselves environmentalists drag us out in courts every time we try to build levees to protect people. People calling themselves environmentalists protested nuclear power, preventing it from becoming our main power source. People calling themselves protesters killed hundreds of thousands by banning DDT\'s.

You can debate any of these issues on its own terms. But once again environmentalists are right or wrong about these issues independant of whether or not their personal lives are lived up to your standards on the subject.

Originally posted by Evil DaveThe wackos are the most vocal, so automatically get lumped with the moderates, and those actually trying to do good.
It\'s the way the world works, you are judged by who you associate with. Is it right? No, but that\'s the way it is.
Just as I, a conservative, get lumped with today\'s Republicans. Uh uh, we\'re completely different, but nobody cares.

In this conversation, you are the one who doesn\'t seem to care. My point was simply that the lives of environmentalists in general are not fairly judged by their consistency with the claims of one specific group. That you seem to think it fair to judge others in this manner is wrong. It is not not less wrong, because others do it too, or even if they have done it to you. I don\'t tar you with the same brush I use on others, and contrary to the hypothetical above, I do not hold every Christian responsible for living up to Falwell\'s views, nor accuse conservatives of hypocrisy simply because they fail to act as Rush Limbaugh would have them.

Originally posted by Evil DaveGet rid of the wacko mouthpieces and the movement might be taken seriously by many, for their hypocrisy overshadows any good you may actually do.

In what sense? Are others supposed to shut the \"wackos\" up? You have just shown that you yourself grant the \"wackos\" more authority than others in their own movement. Only a world in which anyone you happen to regard as a wacko was absolutely silenced would you be free of excuse to call others hypocrits. That\'s very convenient.

Originally posted by Evil DaveI\'m all for greener more economical power, and fresh air for all, I don\'t see the loons, who are perceived as the heads of your movement, having the right answers at all.

...and I could say that neither do the \"loons\" who seem to be their principle critics. But frankly, I\'d rather do without the name calling altogether. If you want more rational approaches to the issue, then less invective would help. If your goal is to intimidate your opposition and ensure that only the least thoughtful environmentalists will be heard, then by all means continue to increase the emotional ante with insults and moral characatures.

Originally posted by Evil DaveSee, I just gave you some very good advice, things that your movement can do, that would put more people like me leaning towards your movement, how\'s that for hatred?

Actually, there is a fair amount of hatred above. There are also allusions to real issues about which I gather you could produce substantive arguments. But no, there is no good advice up there. Just a kind of empty blackmail. You will pay attention, it seems, if and only if environmentalists get rid of those who may be considered \'wackos\' (and apparently pay a pound of flesh before they vote). By that standard every political movement fails and none deserve any respect. That\'s called scape-goating.

Scapegoating is not good advice.

 

[lono]

Hey everyone, here\'s a video of a kid messing up jumping into a swimming pool!

Happy, happy, joy, joy!

 

[farseerlum]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Global Warming is supposed to be world population threating problem. Famine, floods, epidemics, disasters of Biblical proportions, possible extinction of the human race, AND WE ONLY HAVE TEN YEARS !!!
Now if you truly believe this, then why, why, should I respect anyone who is spouting this, yet not doing their absolute utmost to prevent it? Why should you?

ahh see this is what i was talking about much ealier. if you think we have ten years then my friend you should just not worry about it altogether. in fact i\'d use a crap load more oil to build me some nice apocolypse accomodation. because there is nothing you can do about it.
the carbon and methane is already there and needs to activley removed. we have no science that can do it that fast.

if all emmisions were immediatly stopped %100 you will still have climate change continue to worsen for the next 10 years. by then if we aren\'t in a greenhouse winter our weather will still deterorate for another 200 years becuase the carbon just won\'t quit.

if you believe this theory then you should realise the damage has been done. you can\'t undo it now. the best you can hope for is a faster recovery. but i\'m afraid we already very doomed.