December 3, 200916 yr I do feel strongly that human activity with regards to industrialization and automation have harmed the Earth through depletion of the ozone, deforestation, the extraordinary "rape" of minerals and ores, and urbanization. I believe that from a logical, philosophical sense. There is evidence of the harm that these activities have. This isn't a new philosophy for me. I've believed this way since I was a small child. I've seen the effects for myself. I believe in stewardship of the Earth for the benefit of future generations. I agree that we do need to be good stewards. There is no excuse for dumping toxic waste in streams and trashing the planet. It irritates the poop out of me watching smokers throw their cigarettes out the window of their moving vehicle or dumping their ashtray on the ground in a parking lot. I am all for ending our petroleum dependence for many reasons the first of which is national security. However I think there is very little we can do that will effect the earth warming and cooling. I think that it is just a convienient excuse to transfer money from one group to another under the guise of science.
December 3, 200916 yr I do feel strongly that human activity with regards to industrialization and automation have harmed the Earth through depletion of the ozone, deforestation, the extraordinary "rape" of minerals and ores, and urbanization. I believe that from a logical, philosophical sense. There is evidence of the harm that these activities have. This isn't a new philosophy for me. I've believed this way since I was a small child. I've seen the effects for myself. I believe in stewardship of the Earth for the benefit of future generations. All fine and commendable. The problem is that those on the left are destroying the desire of people to be such stewards when they lie and manipulate the data for their little political and monetary gain.
December 3, 200916 yr I agree that we do need to be good stewards. There is no excuse for dumping toxic waste in streams and trashing the planet. It irritates the poop out of me watching smokers throw their cigarettes out the window of their moving vehicle or dumping their ashtray on the ground in a parking lot. I am all for ending our petroleum dependence for many reasons the first of which is national security. However I think there is very little we can do that will effect the earth warming and cooling. I think that it is just a convienient excuse to transfer money from one group to another under the guise of science. You could very well be correct in your last statement. I'm completely candind when I say that I support the premise and the theory. But, I don't know how much I support the institutions per se. However, I do harbor skepticism about how much most humans would do to change their habits if not forced. So, in essence, I waffle on the government regulations.
December 3, 200916 yr You could very well be correct in your last statement. I'm completely candind when I say that I support the premise and the theory. But, I don't know how much I support the institutions per se. However, I do harbor skepticism about how much most humans would do to change their habits if not forced. So, in essence, I waffle on the government regulations. I agree with you on human behavior. We are not the most altruistic beings on the planet. I, like you, try to do my part for my children's future (recycling, driving the most efficient car possible, being an energy miser around the house, not wasting food, taking extremely good care of everything I own so it lasts, etc.) I do disagree with the left though in that I think the better way to change human behavior is to incentivize instead of tax. Give most people a monetary benefit (tax credits, share of profits from recycling, etc)for their actions rather than just taking money from all of us for their inaction.
December 6, 200916 yr A very good commentary from Canada: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8 For a more humorous view of the situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8 Edited December 6, 200916 yr by Bluegrasscard Added Jon Stewart link
December 6, 200916 yr For a more humorous view of the situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8 :ohbrother: How can he consistently be more lame than the last time? It's amazing!
December 6, 200916 yr http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_climate_hearing "The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said another government scientist Jane Lubchenco. Actually the science and the all the 'independent' studies were shot down in 2006...in a report presented to Congress. http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf 3rd pdf page, 'Findings': "... We note that there is no evidence tht Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians. (next paragraph)... Our findings from this analysis suggetst that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus 'independent studies' may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue. (next paragraph)... Overall, our committe believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis." Again: "Our findings from this analysis suggetst that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus 'independent studies' may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. " Congress was told this... in 2006! Other links decribing the results of this report: http://ecomythsmith.blogspot.com/2006/07/wegman-report.html "The report illustrates how science can be manipulated and that the peer-review process is not a guarantee of either precision nor accuracy in scientific findings. " http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=908 "...According to Dr. Wegman, these links were moved when the Democrats won Congress. Interestingly, the reports with the actual conclusions were moved (without providing links) but other stuff remains (hearing testimony, etc.). "
December 6, 200916 yr :ohbrother: How can he consistently be more lame than the last time? It's amazing! "Value added data? What is that numbers fortified with art? Truth plus...now with lemon..." Its not slapstick but he cuts to the issues with a chuckle.
December 7, 200916 yr Global warming is a myth. I'm not so sure about that. But, by the same token, I'm not so sure it's as extreme as some would have us believe. Why is it so hard to accept that a middle-ground approach might be best? What I do find interesting about this thread is this: Some folks are adamant about calling it a hoax based on the fact that some people might benefit financially from the green effort, but choose to give the extraction industries a pass on the amount of money they pour into this fight (which dwarfs global warming's proponents' investment tenfold, and probably a lot more)? I love muscle cars, and want to own several when I can afford it. And I don't care how much I pay for the gas, when I can afford it. But I'm willing to pay for the privilege of mucking up the environment. Some folks act like they want to set bonfires to burn tons and tons of styrofoam just on GP, in order to "show those lefties what for, and exercise my freedom." Why can't there be a middle ground? :confused:
December 7, 200916 yr I'm not so sure about that. But, by the same token, I'm not so sure it's as extreme as some would have us believe. Why is it so hard to accept that a middle-ground approach might be best? What I do find interesting about this thread is this: Some folks are adamant about calling it a hoax based on the fact that some people might benefit financially from the green effort, but choose to give the extraction industries a pass on the amount of money they pour into this fight (which dwarfs global warming's proponents' investment tenfold, and probably a lot more)? I love muscle cars, and want to own several when I can afford it. And I don't care how much I pay for the gas, when I can afford it. But I'm willing to pay for the privilege of mucking up the environment. Some folks act like they want to set bonfires to burn tons and tons of styrofoam just on GP, in order to "show those lefties what for, and exercise my freedom." Why can't there be a middle ground? :confused: An inconvenient truth?
December 7, 200916 yr I'm not so sure about that. But, by the same token, I'm not so sure it's as extreme as some would have us believe. Why is it so hard to accept that a middle-ground approach might be best? What I do find interesting about this thread is this: Some folks are adamant about calling it a hoax based on the fact that some people might benefit financially from the green effort, but choose to give the extraction industries a pass on the amount of money they pour into this fight (which dwarfs global warming's proponents' investment tenfold, and probably a lot more)? I love muscle cars, and want to own several when I can afford it. And I don't care how much I pay for the gas, when I can afford it. But I'm willing to pay for the privilege of mucking up the environment. Some folks act like they want to set bonfires to burn tons and tons of styrofoam just on GP, in order to "show those lefties what for, and exercise my freedom." Why can't there be a middle ground? :confused: Links? I don't see ANYONE on here saying anything negative about keeping the environment clean, they're just not willing to be forced to do things that aren't necessary in order to line the pockets of those that created and will benefit from this hoax.
December 7, 200916 yr Why can't there be a middle ground? :confused: If the middle ground is to protect the environment and ourselves from toxins and pollutants in the air and water and ground - yes. But the middle ground does not include a continued war on CO2. CARBON-DIOXCIDE is not the problem. CO2 is a colorless, orderless gas. If you SEE pollution you are not seeing CO2. Yet the war that is ranging is about - CO2, not toxic, vial pollution. Look at the opinion page of today's Lexington Herald-Leader-Pravda. Title "Carbon Conflict" and they show black smoke out of what looks like factories. That is pure propoganda that incorrectly depicts the issue of CO2. So if the middle ground is keep fighting POLLUTION, but quit fighting CARBON DIOXIDE then that works. AWG based on CO2 is myth and a very dangerous one.
December 7, 200916 yr Links? I don't see ANYONE on here saying anything negative about keeping the environment clean, they're just not willing to be forced to do things that aren't necessary in order to line the pockets of those that created and will benefit from this hoax. In the interest of capitalism, what the heck is wrong with someone making money off of green efforts? Shoot, if not for capitalism, it wouldn't cost so much to go to the doctor and for medicine. But no one who is upset about climate warming data manipulation is seemingly at all concerned with the costs of medical care and prescriptions. I mean, they don't like it, but apparently assume it's the cost of being sick...that these industries have the need to charge as much as they do. And further, what about all these medicines for stuff that really, no one needs. Frankly, I think that considering that the world still revolved when men had sexual dysfunction in the "old days", it's no world crisis now. :lol:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.