PDA

View Full Version : OT - different take on global warming



Pages : [1] 2

mattclary
10-10-2007, 08:30 AM
Interesting take on how global warming can affect us.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481707,00.html

I found the below quote particularly compelling. It touches on a thought I have had for a long time. Ever notice that more sun-drenched (warmer) climates are a lot more energetic ecosystems? You get near the equator and you have all these plants and animals that are poisonous and brightly colored. It's like they just have much more metabolic energy to spare. As contrasted with colder environs where metabolic energy has to be spent on staying warm and the wildlife in general seems more sedate.


On the contrary, there is much to be said for the argument that warming temperatures promote biodiversity. There is a clear relationship between biodiversity and temperature. The number of species increases exponentially from the regions near the poles across the moderate latitudes and to the equator. To put it succinctly, the warmer a region is, the more diverse are its species.

Lets not start a flame war with this. I (for one) accept we are changing the environment, I just take issue with the fact that supposedly there are no positive benefits to a warmer climate.

Lightwolf
10-10-2007, 08:40 AM
...I just take issue with the fact that supposedly there are no positive benefits to a warmer climate.
There are a few problems with your conclusion.
We'll see a shift of climate zones, with more extremely hot zones along the equator (where the analogy doesn't work anymore if you think about the Sahara. Biodiversity?).
On the other side we seem to be loosing colder climate zones in the north and their respective eco systems (i.e. polar bears, reindeer population decreasing).

All within quite a short time.

Cheers,
Mike

iconoclasty
10-10-2007, 08:54 AM
But pretty soon those polar bears are going to evolve into iguanas.

mattclary
10-10-2007, 09:01 AM
Lots of species have come and gone, there will always be some species to fill their place. Maybe even ours. ;)

mattclary
10-10-2007, 09:04 AM
On the other side we seem to be loosing colder climate zones in the north and their respective eco systems (i.e. polar bears, reindeer population decreasing).







SPIEGEL: But there are certainly animals that live in very limited niches. For example, how would polar bears survive global warming?

Reichholf: Then let me ask you in return: How did the polar bear survive the last warm period? Perhaps Knut at the Berlin Zoo is an exception, but polar bears in the wild don't exactly survive by sucking on ice. Seals are the polar bear's most important source of food, and the Canadians slaughter tens of thousands of them every spring. That's why life is becoming more and more difficult for polar bears, and not because it's getting warmer. Look at the polar bear's close relative, the brown bear. It is found across a broad geographic region, ranging from Europe across the Near East and North Asia, to Canada and the United States. Whether bears survive will depend on human beings, not the climate.


..............

SplineGod
10-10-2007, 10:25 AM
Man does effect the environment but so does every living thing on the planet. To what extent man does is what I have trouble with. I think that there are other much more powerful natural forces at work that account for cycles of warm and cold periods that we have very little effect on.
I see the biggest benefit of the global warming scare going to people and groups who want funding and the whole industry springing up around this issue. :)

Lightwolf
10-10-2007, 11:09 AM
I see the biggest benefit of the global warming scare going to people and groups who want funding and the whole industry springing up around this issue. :)
I see the biggest problem in people not willing to bet 2% of the GNP on the chance that we are really screwing up our planet... while we happily insure ourselves against all kinds of stuff that is a lot less likely.

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
10-10-2007, 11:09 AM
I see the biggest benefit of the global warming scare going to people and groups who want funding and the whole industry springing up around this issue. :)

And SOMEBODY needs to animate all those documentaries! ;)

theo
10-10-2007, 11:11 AM
I feel, strongly, that greater awareness about global warming will have a positive overflow effect on a subject that I am passionate about, namely, conservation.

I am sure both sides have some very compelling and accurate takes on this, possibly, critical issue but one thing that EVERYONE should be, regardless of the truth, is a steward and conserver of our natural resources.

Frankly, I am not sure I WANT global industry being reassured that they are not responsible for the environment, whether macro or micro.

The natural compunction of most humans seems to revolve around greed, which breeds abuse and waste.

If humanity would have possessed a greater awareness of conservation several hundred years ago across a broader spectrum of civilization I feel that the planet would be in far better shape in terms of natural beauty, wildlife species protection, and the advanced ability to harvest and process natural resources in a far more sustainable manner.

So if the argument about global warming raises awareness in this regard, I say let the argument rage for a century.

mattclary
10-10-2007, 11:37 AM
Things that rock you back on your heels and say, "Hmmmmmm.....":



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

It's amazing how the picture changes when you take a longer term look.

theo
10-10-2007, 12:08 PM
It's amazing how the picture changes when you take a longer term look.

This illustrates, possibly, my biggest "gripe" with the approach taken by global warmists.

I tend to somewhat centrist on the debate, as a result, I do see some merit on both sides of the argument.

The Industrial Revolution has won no admiration from me outside of the predictable appreciation for being a vehicle that pulled many from poverty, particularly in the latter years of the revolution when it became a bit more responsible. But the revolution unfolded uncontrolled and without deep appreciation for environmental impact.

To my way of thinking, we do have to be responsible with the planet to insure a viable, sustainable and comfortable environment for our families hundreds of years out.

Now, obviously, mother nature can throw a monkey wrench in all of this quite handily. One large projectile from space can pretty much take the entire debate and throw it into an ice age. But, that is something, we as civilization, have zero control over.

We can't control volcanoes. We can't control solar flares. The list is endless of natural processes that cannot be under the subjection of man.

So the point I am making Matt, is that we should be proper stewards of what we CAN control.

More than likely we will end up completely destroying the planet in some sort of an atomic holocaust anyway so the debate, in the end, may be moot. Oy, how cheery.

Lightwolf
10-10-2007, 12:20 PM
More than likely we will end up completely destroying the planet in some sort of an atomic holocaust anyway so the debate, in the end, may be moot. Oy, how cheery.
Hm, I thought only the dumb survive - at least from personal observation. Survival of the fittest? Hah! :D

Cheers,
Mike

Steamthrower
10-10-2007, 12:25 PM
I think that conservation is an important issue. Yet I think much of it is all hype. In my view, and from the science history I've studied, I think a lot of it is just the natural climactic cycles of the world. And there's nothing to be done about that.

2BitSculptor
10-10-2007, 12:27 PM
here is another graphic... from an associate's web site.
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

It seems we are all here for the ride anyway..... regardless of our efforts, good or bad. And after we are gone, the Earth will flourish as it always has.

Chuck

Sande
10-10-2007, 02:13 PM
I see the biggest benefit of the global warming scare going to people and groups who want funding and the whole industry springing up around this issue. :)
I see that pretty far fetched - especially if you think about which side has more money to lose/make. Especially in the US it seems that industries are quite busy lobbying people and politicians on their side and creating their own studies about the global warming...
When you then think about who has more money and resources to advertise their point of view and present their own studies to the public, I'm not surprised at all that some people are so cynical about the whole issue.

archijam
10-10-2007, 02:31 PM
In the end it's easier to look for a silver lining than stop being selfish consumers. Sad.

j.

Glendalough
10-10-2007, 03:13 PM
Natural cycle thing is a load of crap. Ask a real scientist.

There is no 'scare', it is a reality. Half the polar ice melted away this summer, a thing that was said to be impossible about 4 years ago. It could all melt away any summer in the next few years. This was predicted for 2040-50 at the soonest by computer models.

Even the White House has finally admitted man induced global warming. Don't understand people who want to risk ruining the world for a very short economic gain. Anyway, mountains of money could be made fixing the earth rather than destroying it.

Glendalough
10-10-2007, 03:20 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Global-Warming-Humidity.html

2BitSculptor
10-10-2007, 05:08 PM
Ask a real scientist.
:lol:

Maybe we should also listen to the "young earth" theorists and chalk it all up to the final purging of the Earth of evildoers at the end of the less than 10,000 years of Earth history (which also renders all earlier cyclic global weather theories moot).

Russel
10-10-2007, 05:08 PM
Interesting how the media scares us into thinking we're the true problem when in actuality global warming and overall temp changes have to do with solar activity. History has shown that our sun is the main culprit in climate change.
Thus global warming is not caused by humans for the most part... so stop believing the media hype.

Heck, the rainforests have been found to produce more greenhouse gases than oxygen, and what about the shrinking polar ice caps on Mars? (I don't see a huge industrial complex operating on Mars to cause that!) Not to mention that the ozone hole in the arctic is closing back up, among other things.

And for those who believe the Bible (to cover all the bases)... did not God say that the seasons/harvest would not stop until Jesus returns? Thus, if that be so, then why worry about the latest liberal media spin? :devil:

As for me, I'm not worried about it... though I do 'reuse and recycle'... and even compost! It's just common sense. :)
My two pennies.

references:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/16/1032054763580.html

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=environment&Number=677601&page=5&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?ArtId=17977

2BitSculptor
10-10-2007, 05:09 PM
.... start finding a way for humans not to be dependent on this planet for life.

Is that even possible?

Matt
10-10-2007, 05:12 PM
Basically we're all doomed, may as well enjoy it while you can, buy that big car you've always wanted, leave your electricity sucking PC rendering all night to test some GI settings, fly everywhere and visit places while they are still there!

;)

:D

akademus
10-10-2007, 05:21 PM
Global warming is cool :)

2BitSculptor
10-10-2007, 05:27 PM
The three fates have spoken!

Glendalough
10-10-2007, 05:34 PM
LOL... yep thats about it!
No, heres how I see it... May not make much sense to some.
We are not capable of doing anything that wasn't meant to be, so if it is happening... it is supposed to be happening. humans are not as powerful as we would like to believe.

Nor are they as stupid as some would have! Predestination is good fun when you want to be lazy and irresponsible.

Most of the rain forests have been burnt down, people don't want to realize how small and fragile the world is.

In the U.S. which has more than it's share of crackpots, a large majority, 70-80% believe in man made Global warming and are probably going to do something about it, at the moment maybe just cry.

Glendalough
10-10-2007, 05:57 PM
I realize how small and fragile the earth is.......

At least we can agree on that, I'm happy. http://www.newtek.com/forums/images/smilies/brians/agree.gif (can't work the agree smilie)

IMI
10-10-2007, 06:28 PM
Have you all heard of the "Little Ice Age"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

I heard of this first in a documentary on The Discovery Channel, a year or so ago. Apparently the climate changed to about the same extent as it has now, so they say, with some rather unpleasant temporary consequences.
Can't blame that one on man, though. There was certainly not enough of anything our ancestors were putting into the atmosphere to cause it.
There are some funny things you discover in the four billion+ year history of the Earth's climate - it's anything but static.

I wouldn't say we don't have the ability to change the climate, just that what appears to be not necessarily is.

Science should be Science. When Science becomes Politics, we've all become a little bit dumbed-down. ;)

Sande
10-10-2007, 06:46 PM
Hmmh, the counter arguments so far doesn't convince me much:

1. There are other factors than humans in global warming, it's natural cycle etc etc.
- Does that mean we do not need to take it seriously or that we don't have to do anything because we are not the only one's to blame? Does it mean that humans do not contribute to the effect and it could not at least be slowed down?

2. There's nothing we can do to stop it.
- So, we shouldn't even try? What's the harm in trying? Especially Oldteker confuses me - first you let it be known that there's nothing we can do about global warming and then you propose that we should start populating other planets... Couple posts later you again mention that "We are not capable of doing anything that wasn't meant to be" and "we are not as powerful as we think" and then again in the next post you say that anything is possible... Hmmh, make up your mind! :)

Njah, like said - there are lot of politics involved. It's starting to get so cold here in Finland this time of year that global warming doesn't seem to be too close yet - so I can still leave my octo core rendering some radiosity tests and go to sleep... ;)

IMI
10-10-2007, 07:12 PM
For what it's worth, I think we as a species should do everything possible to reduce emissions, increase energy efficiency, stop pollution, and explore all alternative fuels both real and theoretical.
For our environment, and for our economy.
Just because it's The Right Thing To Do, not out of fear or coercion.

Politics, unfortunately, only knows coercion as its M.O. for enacting any kind of change.

akademus
10-10-2007, 11:18 PM
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a841/a841_bm.gif

Sande
10-11-2007, 12:49 AM
akademus, lol - I sometimes feel like that polar bear here. :)

prospector
10-11-2007, 01:24 AM
and what about the shrinking polar ice caps on Mars? (I don't see a huge industrial complex operating on Mars to cause that!)
Yes we did it..with those landings on mars...we took the pollution in the landers and it's spreading!!!


2. There's nothing we can do to stop it.
- So, we shouldn't even try?
correct

What's the harm in trying?
It takes my money away

*Pete*
10-11-2007, 02:30 AM
Global warming does not only mean better, warmer and longer summers..id love that personally :D

but it means more of stronger storms, higher sealevels, more rain in some areas, no rain in others...in short, much much more severe weather that will for sure cause much much more damage to our cities and our lifestyle, which will not be cheap to deal with either.

last winter was the warmest recorded here in norway, roses still growing outside at christmas..snow nowhere to be seen.

this summer was the rainiest summer, ever..nothing but rain, all summer.

natural reasons play a part in this, man made reasons play an other part...how many percent is man made is uncertain, but id like to give as little help to warming up the globe as possible.

becouse there is a point where we cant undo the damage anymore..think of the frozen tundras...underneath the frozen ground you will find lots of old vegetation, but when it is melted it will start rotting, and release vast amounts of metan gas which will boost global warming like nothing else have done so far, there will be no way to stop it once it starts..the increased global temperature will make this happen everywhere, more and more, faster and faster.


polar ice is half gone...its incredible amount of ice...its like half of USA would have melted away.


how long time do we have before the tundras will start melting?...you all have to understand, that we can stop man made pollution easily, but the natural warming process cant be stopped..its like a lightswitch you can turn on, but not off.

id be carefull not to mess with that lightswitch.

v1u1ant
10-11-2007, 04:29 AM
Consumer is just a modern day word for slave, untill people get that, we are all sheep following a blind shepard.

Why do we put an abstract like money above a tangeable like the environment?

Understand this, and you start to understand just what we are doing to the planet.

mattclary
10-11-2007, 09:38 AM
I don't know, when you look at the long term, this looks pretty cyclical to me. I don't deny we are having some effect, but we are OBVIOUSLY in a cyclical warming trend.

Global warming advocates preach science, but conveniently ignore what does not support their dogma.

"Global warming" has become a religion for those who are too "smart" to believe in the supernatural. Humans need stuff to believe in, they have just chosen this to latch onto.

Steamthrower
10-11-2007, 09:50 AM
Half the polar ice melted away this summer

Half the polar ice melted this year? Can you give me a link confirming that?

mattclary
10-11-2007, 10:01 AM
Half the polar ice melted this year? Can you give me a link confirming that?

He's right, a lot more ice melted this year than in recorded history. But it's not the first time there has been a lack of ice at the poles.


The link provided by 2bitSculptor is very informative. Warm climates are great for the wildlife.

Take a quick glance at this. Alligators in northern Europe.
http://www.scotese.com/miocene1.htm

Sande
10-11-2007, 10:12 AM
I don't know, when you look at the long term, this looks pretty cyclical to me. I don't deny we are having some effect, but we are OBVIOUSLY in a cyclical warming trend.

"Global warming" has become a religion for those who are too "smart" to believe in the supernatural. Humans need stuff to believe in, they have just chosen this to latch onto.
Hmmh, have I missed something here? You say we are in a cyclical warming trend, but then say those silly things about global warming and religion... "Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation." (wikipedia) - if we are in a cyclical warming trend isn't that happening or did you just lose your faith in the middle of your post? ;)

Lightwolf
10-11-2007, 10:17 AM
I don't know, when you look at the long term, this looks pretty cyclical to me. I don't deny we are having some effect, but we are OBVIOUSLY in a cyclical warming trend.

hm, looking at the time scale of your graph we're surely accelerating it then... by a factor of what, 100?

Even if it is only x10 that's still way to much.

Cheers,
Mike

Andyjaggy
10-11-2007, 10:17 AM
It is undeniable that the climate is changing.

It is also undeniable that this cycle has happened many times in the history of the earth.

And to what extent man is responsible for the current warming I think is completely based on human opinion. I have no doubt we do influence it but t what degree is all conjecture.

Does this mean I don't think we should do all we can to clean up the environment. Of coarse not, I'm a big outdoors person and when I read articles that 1/3 of all reptiles and amphibians are endangered it makes me sad. I think we should do all we can to minimize our impact on the earth, but we don't have power to change the natural cycles that the earth goes through.

Exception
10-11-2007, 10:18 AM
It's not so much the fact that the climate is changing that is detrimental to biodiversity and our ecosystems including ourselves, it's the RATE at which it is changing. Normally, most species can adapt given enough time. But at these rates they are unable to migrate, alter habits and form new ecosystems so the system breaks. That will affect us in return. Also, the RATE at which it is happening causes instability / turbulence, which is expressed in the ever climbing number of natural excesses occuring all over the place (pick your favorite type: hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, etc).
We certainly affect this rate, however we're way too late and will be getting our share of misery, as we rightfully deserve with our arrogance about thw whole thing. However, we can prevent further and even more excessive damage by dealing with this effectively now.

Prospector, the idea that fighting global climate change, or some other (usually much worse but less hyped about) environmental problems will cost you money is the most flawed perspective you can have. There is actually money to be made in quite a few cases. It's not unlike insurance.
You know what is costing your American taxpayer's half of what you're paying? War.

v1u1ant
10-11-2007, 10:32 AM
A couple of meteorological friends say to me that yes this is a cyclical weather pattern that is now occuring which is just being speeded up by humans, cows, etc.

Yes the polar icecap melted so much this year a channel in northern canada has opened up for the first time in something like 30 years or more. I believe a tanker tried to navigate it 20 years ago and was very badly damaged. Now apparently its ice free, cutting down shipping trade times between UK and Japan by two thirds.
They reckoned this is unprecedented and all the computer simulations that are running global warming patterns did not predict that amount of ice loss untill at least 2050. Weve just lost that in 6 months. Worrying to say the least.


However that does go to show that we really have not the faintest clue what we are really dealing with here. Too many factors involved if you ask me so everyone is guessing.

Steamthrower
10-11-2007, 10:34 AM
You know what is costing your American taxpayer's half of what you're paying? War.

I'm an American, paying taxes, and I agree. I don't even really care about having to lose a lot of hard-earned money. It's the fact that people are getting killed with it, and for what reason? Oil? The fact that there "might" be some nuclear weapons somewhere? So?

Much in the world is hype. I think that most anything related to the environment nowadays is hype. I don't like pollution and extinction any more than anyone else does. It's just that species go extinct as a natural matter of course, and there's little we can do about that. Besides exercise moderation in all things.

Dirk
10-11-2007, 10:43 AM
It takes my money away

:agree: Couldn't agree more.

see also:

"They call this a consensus?"

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

Lightwolf
10-11-2007, 10:48 AM
Too many factors involved if you ask me so everyone is guessing.
And to few engineers involved. If they guess, they at least take an error margin into account and prefer to err on the safe side (good for us).
Apparently human nature is the opposite ;)

Cheers,
Mike

theo
10-11-2007, 11:07 AM
A couple of meteorological friends say to me that yes this is a cyclical weather pattern that is now occuring which is just being speeded up by humans, cows, etc.

Yes the polar icecap melted so much this year a channel in northern canada has opened up for the first time in something like 30 years or more. I believe a tanker tried to navigate it 20 years ago and was very badly damaged. Now apparently its ice free, cutting down shipping trade times between UK and Japan by two thirds.
They reckoned this is unprecedented and all the computer simulations that are running global warming patterns did not predict that amount of ice loss untill at least 2050. Weve just lost that in 6 months. Worrying to say the least.


However that does go to show that we really have not the faintest clue what we are really dealing with here. Too many factors involved if you ask me so everyone is guessing.

Computer simulations are similar to the human counterparts that feed them data. A lot of very calculated guesswork.

There is little question that we are trying to lassoe a rainbow here. I tend to grimace when I see one side or the other pull a sanctimonious tantrum in the news media.

But I will tell you- I DO want to see a beautiful planet. I DO enjoy nature and her majestic wonders. I DO relish wildlife. I live on eight acres of woods out in farmland Ohio and I have a DEEP appreciation of the wonders of natural life.

I conserve. Most of my property is a preserve. I live conscious of my actions and engage this little spot of heaven in a way that promotes sanctuary and beauty. And, it works.

And I will tell you that people that have a connection to the earth will work WITH the earth and not against it.

And, frankly, it doesn't cost much more than a little effort.

mattclary
10-11-2007, 11:46 AM
Hmmh, have I missed something here? You say we are in a cyclical warming trend, but then say those silly things about global warming and religion... "Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation." (wikipedia) - if we are in a cyclical warming trend isn't that happening or did you just lose your faith in the middle of your post? ;)

I do not deny we are warming.

I do not deny humans may be partially responsible.

I do not believe it is catastrophic.

I do believe that global warming is politicized.

I do believe the issue of global warming acts as a surrogate religion.

mattclary
10-11-2007, 11:48 AM
hm, looking at the time scale of your graph we're surely accelerating it then... by a factor of what, 100?

Even if it is only x10 that's still way to much.


Mike, please explain how we are accelerating it ten-fold based on this graph. Based on the cycle I am seeing, we should have already hit a peak commensurate with those other peaks, yet we have not.

mattclary
10-11-2007, 11:56 AM
In fact, I will go you one better. As I said, I admit we are warming and may be responsible. The only thing I debate is the catastrophic nature of the warming.

Look at this graph again. Note the two green lines I have added. If you look at the peak on the right (in the past) the warming trend dropped rapidly into a new ice age.

The characteristics of our peak do somewhat resemble that and it looks like we were on a downward trend within the last few thousand years ago.

What if humans PREVENTED a new ice age?

Look at the graph closely.

theo
10-11-2007, 11:56 AM
I do believe the issue of global warming acts as a surrogate religion.

Ah yes, my Gaia friends would concur.

Exception
10-11-2007, 11:59 AM
Mike, please explain how we are accelerating it ten-fold based on this graph. Based on the cycle I am seeing, we should have already hit a peak commensurate with those other peaks, yet we have not.

As if you could deduct anything from such a muddy unclear and rough graph spanning over thousands of years regarding anything that has been going on in the last 50... :)

Yes climate change is natural. The rate of change is not. Makes all the difference.

It doesn't matter how many scientists say that global climate change is not an issue. The ones that have tenure in the science world say it is. I know enough crackpot scientists that say all kinds of ridiculous things (either way, really... hollow earth theory anyone?).
As Lightwolf says, a responsible scientist will err on the side of safety.

It's so much fun to see the whole world adopting this as a given by now and trying to actively and productively working together while, as usual, northern America is being the dumb bully in the playground. Even conservative Britain is implementing regulations all over the place making all social housing sustainable, reducing carbon outputs from all industries and residential, changing taxes towards more responsible energy usage and so on. The world is moving on. China is so far ahead of the US in this matter, they'll never catch up.

The funny thing is, that like I said before, you can make and save a lot of money by being more efficient and producing cleaner and more environmental friendly things, and retrofitting the old. Anyone with half a brain and som money in his pocket is smelling the nectar, and know that they're certainly not going to huirt anyone while doing it. It's really not a matter of money, it's a matter of being stubborn and have a fundamentalist conservative mindset. Which is usually the same one that says that there is a valid reason for going out and kill people en-masse for something that has definately not got any scientific consensus.

And the last time I believed a Canadian newspaper was before I could read. Arn;t they all owned by the same company yet? Or is it still two?

Lightwolf
10-11-2007, 11:59 AM
Mike, please explain how we are accelerating it ten-fold based on this graph.
Look at the bottom. It took something like what, 15,000 years for the last peak to go the maximum.
What were are seeing now is major temperature changes that apparently happen within decades, not thousands of years.
10 * 100 = 1000.
Even if it is only a ten-fold increase of the rate... then it's still 10 times too fast.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
10-11-2007, 12:01 PM
As Lightwolf says, a responsible scientist will err on the side of safety.
Actually, my point is we should. Of course, since it likely won't impact us that hard during our lifetime, only our kids... who cares.

Cheers,
Mike

Exception
10-11-2007, 12:04 PM
Actually, my point is we should. Of course, since it likely won't impact us that hard during our lifetime, only our kids... who cares.


British minister of Environment's definition of sustainability: "Not cheating on the grandkids."

Got to love that :)

mattclary
10-11-2007, 12:08 PM
Look at the bottom. It took something like what, 15,000 years for the last peak to go the maximum.
What were are seeing now is major temperature changes that apparently happen within decades, not thousands of years.
10 * 100 = 1000.
Even if it is only a ten-fold increase of the rate... then it's still 10 times too fast.


I still honestly don't follow what you are saying. If anything, see my last post. our PEAK for this cycle was several thousand years ago (before man had pretty much ANY impact on the environment) and by all rights I think we should have been in another ice age by now.

Persoanlly, I'm pretty happy with our current climate (or even warmer) vs. a new ice age.

One of you global warming disaster advocates, please tell me: Would you prefer an ice age or where we are headed.

Because based on this graph, it's pretty undeniable that it's a cycle of the two and at no point has this planet ever had a flatline climate.

wacom
10-11-2007, 12:23 PM
Rate is everything. Things are warming fairly quickly...

Now if we just dumped a bunch of mutagens in most areas we'd get an increase in the rate evolution that might keep up with the pace of warming...just a small, crude...and potentially destructive approach to dealing with it!:devil:

Kind'ah like Chernobyl!

Anyone game?

Exception
10-11-2007, 12:26 PM
One of you global warming disaster advocates, please tell me: Would you prefer an ice age or where we are headed.

Global CLIMATE CHANGE, not global warming.
It's get colder in some places, warmer in others.

It doesn't matter what we 'prefer' it matters what it'll do to the giant intertwined system that is called our ecosystem. It's absolutely irrelevant wether or not you or I need to wear a jacket or our sunbathers instead of a T-Shirt. If we lose certain key species, we won't survive. And I'm sure it won't come to that, but if you take a step out of your house and visit some places that are already being affected, you tell the starving and dying people over there that you like wearing your hawaiian shirt in november.

mattclary
10-11-2007, 12:29 PM
Rate is everything. Things are warming fairly quickly...



Actually, I disagree. On average, we are staying the same vs. cooling quickly as we have in the past.

Warming quickly or staying the same is all dependent on your frame of reference.

The scale on that graph is 3 degrees celcius. We have stayed well within 3 degrees (probably 1.5) of baseline for quite a while now. Nowhere in the past has it seemed to stay as constant.

mattclary
10-11-2007, 12:30 PM
Global CLIMATE CHANGE, not global warming.
It's get colder in some places, warmer in others.



So, you are saying that overall the global climate is not warming?

Lightwolf
10-11-2007, 12:35 PM
I still honestly don't follow what you are saying.
I was afraid you wouldn't.
Try this, you have the choice of sitting in two vehicles, both accelerating to a top speed of 100mph.
One needs 60 seconds, the other one 0.6 seconds to reach that speed. Which one would you rather sit in (oh, just a normal seat btw)? :D

Cheers,
Mike - darned car analogy again...

Exception
10-11-2007, 12:37 PM
So, you are saying that overall the global climate is not warming?

I'm not saying anything in that direction. I'm saying that our weather systems are a lot more complex than any single scientist or computer model can predict. Even remotely. But there are things which hold true anyway. For instance, that instability is disastrous (literally, you'd think after Katrina some people would start to pay attention), and that is the real issue. We're causing instability and climate change. In some models it's predicted that in 50 years land ice will be sliding up the northern european continent, due to a reversal of land ice sliding into the warm conveyor belt at Greenland, reversing the large circulatory system that's called the Atlantic, thereby rerouting the warm water and cooling down Europe significantly.

At the same time, in 50 years the central American aquifer will be drained anyway (3 meter drop last year) and all the grain and soy in the grain belt will wither and you'll have a famine. Also, not such a great prospect.

mattclary
10-11-2007, 12:40 PM
I was afraid you wouldn't.
Try this, you have the choice of sitting in two vehicles, both accelerating to a top speed of 100mph.
One needs 60 seconds, the other one 0.6 seconds to reach that speed. Which one would you rather sit in (oh, just a normal seat btw)? :D

Cheers,
Mike - darned car analogy again...

Mike, I understand "what" you are saying, but I do not see what in that graph points to us warming 10-fold over how we have warmed in the past.

As I said earlier, it looks to me like we are holding the climate steady where it should have fallen off. It may not even be us, but one way or another, the climate is holding steadier than anything I am seeing in that graph.

Lightwolf
10-11-2007, 12:42 PM
Mike, I understand "what" you are saying, but I do not see what in that graph points to us warming 10-fold over how we have warmed in the past.
Maybe that's because it can't reflect the changes that we've seen in the past 100 years or so?
There's plenty of other data out there though.

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
10-11-2007, 12:43 PM
I'm not saying anything in that direction. I'm saying that our weather systems are a lot more complex than any single scientist or computer model can predict. Even remotely. But there are things which hold true anyway. For instance, that instability is disastrous (literally, you'd think after Katrina some people would start to pay attention), and that is the real issue..


http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200508300805.asp

mattclary
10-11-2007, 12:44 PM
Maybe that's because it can't reflect the changes that we've seen in the past 100 years or so?
There's plenty of other data out there though.



Statistical relevance is helped by a larger data set, Mike. The larger scale holds no indication that we have increased warming 10 fold. On the other hand, I might grant that we HAVE increased warming 10 fold, only if one admits we should currently be in an ice age.

Lightwolf
10-11-2007, 12:48 PM
Statistical relevance is helped by a larger data set, Mike. The larger scale holds no indication that we have increased warming 10 fold.
Hm, but if we have a 1° to 2° (depending on the area) climate change withing 100 years (and we're talking accurate measurements here), where does that show on your graph... and how would it?

Your large scale doesn't cover the current changes at all, it shows that the climate is changing over a large period of time, but it doesn't show if extreme short period changes are the norm or not. And that's the only thing we're talking about here.

Cheers,
Mike

Exception
10-11-2007, 12:51 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200508300805.asp

Ah great, another editorial. The national review even. An editorial in the national review.
That's like an ad in the new york post.

mattclary
10-11-2007, 12:54 PM
Hm, but if we have a 1° to 2° (depending on the area) climate change withing 100 years (and we're talking accurate measurements here), where does that show on your graph... and how would it?

Your large scale doesn't cover the current changes at all, it shows that the climate is changing over a large period of time, but it doesn't show if extreme short period changes are the norm or not. And that's the only thing we're talking about here.


The scale on that graph is 3 degrees celcius. I can grant we may be 1 - 2 degrees above baseline. You have not addressed my proposition that we should technically be in an ice age right now.

Even by your statement above, how do you see 1-2 degrees as a 10 fold increase?

mattclary
10-11-2007, 12:57 PM
Ah great, another editorial. The national review even. An editorial in the national review.
That's like an ad in the new york post.


The theory of global warming causing stronger hurricanes was debunked by climatologist right after all the chicken-littles started wringing their hands over Katrina.

We are two years running now for "the worst hurricane season yet". I suspect they will predict the same thing for next year. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Exception
10-11-2007, 01:08 PM
The theory of global warming causing stronger hurricanes was debunked by climatologist right after all the chicken-littles started wringing their hands over Katrina.

We are two years running now for "the worst hurricane season yet". I suspect they will predict the same thing for next year. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Ah the theory of global warming. We're back to global warming?
And editorials in the national review.
And chicken-littles.
Wringing their hands.
Over dead people.
starvation.
the deplorable state of your country's infrastructure.
and the non-aid it offered.
despite the largest military apparatus ever seen on earth.
Instead of focusing on how to get more cheap oil to burn.
tsk tsk.
bad people.

There's no beginning nor an end to this discussion.
You will always be able to produce some editorial from the national review. About chicken littles and evil men wringing their hands over dead people.

These matters are larger than you, or I or this discussion. There's no sides in this, do you understand this? There's no political agenda here, no left, no right nor kapitalism, socialism, no right or wrong, just life, death and the quality of both of those. And mostly of other people. I choose for my neighbor to live. A good life. As he, nor I, have chosen to be born. And he has just as much right to a great life as I do. He doesn't need our pollution or our descruction of our living environment.
Sometimes you have to wonder how far it needs to go for certain parts of the world to just wake up. Seriously. It's everywhere you look! Been to a landfil recently? Or to a paper factory? Checked the numbers on the latest ford F350? You know that they're made in a sustainable plant, right? Great.

Sorry about the bitterness. Sometimes I can't stand it anymore. No matter how many books I read. Nothing personal.

mattclary
10-11-2007, 01:17 PM
Ah the theory of global warming. We're back to global warming?
And editorials in the national review.
And chicken-littles.
Wringing their hands.
Over dead people.
starvation.
the deplorable state of your country's infrastructure.
and the non-aid it offered.
despite the largest military apparatus ever seen on earth.
Instead of focusing on how to get more cheap oil to burn.
tsk tsk.
bad people.

There's no beginning nor an end to this discussion.
You will always be able to produce some editorial from the national review. About chicken littles and evil men wringing their hands over dead people.

These matters are larger than you, or I or this discussion. There's no sides in this, do you understand this? There's no political agenda here, no left, no right nor kapitalism, socialism, no right or wrong, just life, death and the quality of both of those. And mostly of other people. I choose for my neighbor to live. A good life. As he, nor I, have chosen to be born. And he has just as much right to a great life as I do. He doesn't need our pollution or our descruction of our living environment.
Sometimes you have to wonder how far it needs to go for certain parts of the world to just wake up. Seriously. It's everywhere you look! Been to a landfil recently? Or to a paper factory? Checked the numbers on the latest ford F350? You know that they're made in a sustainable plant, right? Great.

Sorry about the bitterness. Sometimes I can't stand it anymore. No matter how many books I read. Nothing personal.


See that's my point. All you see is death, damnation, and skies falling. You don't see more temperate climates, less heating needs in northern climes, more robust ecosystems, more arable land.

What kind of scenarios for death do you see if we went into an ice age? I can imagine a lot more starvation if we had glaciers (hell, no summer) in the midwest.

theo
10-11-2007, 01:21 PM
Ah the theory of global warming. We're back to global warming?
And editorials in the national review.
And chicken-littles.
Wringing their hands.
Over dead people.
starvation.
the deplorable state of your country's infrastructure.
and the non-aid it offered.
despite the largest military apparatus ever seen on earth.
Instead of focusing on how to get more cheap oil to burn.
tsk tsk.
bad people.

There's no beginning nor an end to this discussion.
You will always be able to produce some editorial from the national review. About chicken littles and evil men wringing their hands over dead people.

These matters are larger than you, or I or this discussion. There's no sides in this, do you understand this? There's no political agenda here, no left, no right nor kapitalism, socialism, no right or wrong, just life, death and the quality of both of those. And mostly of other people. I choose for my neighbor to live. A good life. As he, nor I, have chosen to be born. And he has just as much right to a great life as I do. He doesn't need our pollution or our descruction of our living environment.
Sometimes you have to wonder how far it needs to go for certain parts of the world to just wake up. Seriously. It's everywhere you look! Been to a landfil recently? Or to a paper factory? Checked the numbers on the latest ford F350? You know that they're made in a sustainable plant, right? Great.

Sorry about the bitterness. Sometimes I can't stand it anymore. No matter how many books I read. Nothing personal.

Relax Exception... get a cup of coffee or something. Clary's created a conversation about a stimulating topic, that's all.

I don't recall seeing the meat hook lying about that jerked you into this thread, my GI-testing friend.

robewil
10-11-2007, 01:23 PM
There is a very persuasive Powerpoint presentation you can download.

Stop Dumbing Down (http://www.stopdumbingdown.com/index_files/Page496.htm)

The presentation does a very effective job of exposing flaws in the whole "hockey stick graph" argument.

Exception
10-11-2007, 01:24 PM
See that's my point. All you see is death, damnation, and skies falling. You don't see more temperate climates, less heating needs in northern climes, more robust ecosystems, more arable land.

What kind of scenarios for death do you see if we went into an ice age? I can imagine a lot more starvation if we had glaciers (hell, no summer) in the midwest.

No, I don't see just death.
I've been studying for 10 years developing sustainable technologies that not only save energy, the environment and my fellow human beings but that earn me a good salary and bring joy and pleasure as well, rather than hitting you over the head with their 'greenness'. I just can't see how that could be a bad thing. Ever. I just can't see how anyone would want to take the risk of being wrong in matters like these, just because they're in a position of relative safety. You can make a positive impact on all levels here.

But there WILL be death and starvation due to climate change. There already is, you know, what are we even talking about, just haul yourself to some salinated area and look at the people there. Just do it. It's not about 'just thinking about death', it's realizing it's already here, and that hurts! And that makes some people work VERY hard to minimize and prevent this stuff. just continuing to claim that it's not happening while over in your neighbor's yard it's going on full-force is irresponsible. As an intelligent, educated, curious and decent human being, that I know you as, I fell we have the responsibility to not say no, because, what if we're wrong?
You and I can move to a better place. How many people can do that?

It's so so painful to see that everything is being put on global climate change, while there are even more pressing matters to deal with. But they get treated as the bastard children of global climate change and suffer from the same bad energy surrounding that topic.

mattclary
10-11-2007, 01:26 PM
Exception, i certainly have no ill will towards you, FYI.

While I am thinking about it, would you look at that graph and point to a time that you would find an acceptable living environment that would minimize death and disasters?

Seriously, not joking.

Exception
10-11-2007, 01:40 PM
Exception, i certainly have no ill will towards you, FYI.


Of course, I would never think you would.


While I am thinking about it, would you look at that graph and point to a time that you would find an acceptable living environment that would minimize death and disasters?
Seriously, not joking.

I don't think that is what it is about. It could be any point on the graph, it doesn't really matter where we are. However, it is not where we are (or end up for that matter), it's the rate at which this is occuring.
Past changes in our climate have both (usually) not gone at a rate at which it is currently changing. The beginning and end positions are not important. I certainly don't think we'll end up having an 'unliveable' planet. Far from it. Even if we don't survive (or are decimated), life will continue to go on. However, the rate at which things are changing ar too fast for both humanity in its poorer inceptions to keep up with (agriculture is a big issue here). While we've been chopping away forests all over the world, soil is swept away and unfurtile earth is revealed, due to the meat industry and irresponsible clearing. So, when the climate changes, our agricultural areas shift towards regions that have not enough time to produce furtile soil (that takes thousands of years).
The same goes for animals and all sorts of insect life. We're dependent on that system. they can;t migrate that quickly, they need to change their existence. As opposed to humans, animals don't do this in a rational manner. They will hang on to their instincts that will be wrong in most cases, and they will perish. We lose more animal species a year than we have even discovered. This is no joke, seriously. More types of animal are going extinct... each YEAR than we even know about. And that's not at all just due to global climate change. Now, if we lose the animals, the system will start to fail, and if it does, we're going to feel that. There's large parts of the planet where people are far more reliant on natural sources than the western world is. But we are, in the end, just as much. I'm very much against the idea of global climate change being the cause of all the suckiness in the world.

By the way, I'm working on Skyfarms now. Skyscrapers with 60 floors of triple layered hydrophonic agriculture for in the middle of cities. To get rid of transportation and reclaim urban land for withering agriculture. It's a pretty good bet... I'm hoping it works out.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40129000/gif/_40129722_species_extinc_gra203.gif

prospector
10-11-2007, 01:41 PM
I could take the enviroment thing more seriously (well even a grain of seriousness), if only true science is used.
True science doesn't use mabys, ifs, coulds or possablys.
Like,
correct and accurate measurements of ALL gasses produced from ALL vents at the bottom of the oceans and all the vents on land
PLUS
correct and accurate measurements of ALL the gasses produced from volcanos, underwater and out
PLUS
correct and accurate measurements of ALL gasses released by animals and insects both underwater and above
PLUS
correct and accurate measurements of ALL gasses released by plantlife, both living or decaying, both underwater and above
PLUS
correct and accurate measurements of ALL measurement of all ozone destroyed by gamma radiation from neutron stars
PLUS
correct and accurate measurements of ALL measurement of damage done by meteors, both large and micro
PLUS
correct and accurate measurements of ALL chemical reactions of all above that have anything to do with global warming.

For a period of not less than 10 years....without averaging....correct and reproducable numbers.

Then measure that against all manmade gasses and chemical reactions.

With the result being how much man is REALLY doing.

If mankind is above any or all of the above then I would agree we need to cut back at least till we are below above results.

It's hard to take seriously those who supposidly want to protect the enviroment yet will stop a 50 acre powerplant go up yet turn around and want a 10,000 acre field of airplane propellers.
Which destroys more land?

It's hard to take seriously those who supposidly want to protect the enviroment yet will stop a 1 acre footprint of an oilwellhead, yet want a 100 acre field of solar panels all over the place.
Which destroys more land?

It's hard to take seriously those who supposidly want to protect the enviroment yet will not invest their own money, either as a person or as a group of investors, into alternative choices, but will force all of us to conform to their ways without a choice.

It's hard to take seriously those who supposidly want to protect the enviroment yet will stop anyone from going into woods and collecting dead trees and limbs and brush for firewood (which will be burnt over the course of many months) thereby cutting down on the spread and or speed of a wildfire, yet be ok with a forest fire that burns all that wood and many trees in the course of a week or 2, burning thousands of acres of trees.

It's hard to take seriously those who supposidly want to protect the enviroment yet will stop anyone from cutting roads (paved or otherwise) into forests,and yet again be ok with a forest fire that burns all that wood and many trees in the course of a week or 2, burning thousands of acres of trees.

mattclary
10-11-2007, 01:43 PM
Planet Earth has always been a crucible, in which only the strong survive. We humans are strong, perhaps stronger than the planet, but somehow, I doubt that.

While we have great power to destroy, we also have great compassion. The world is becoming a better place every day. I know ills and injustices abound, but the world is a better place today than it was at any time in the past. Despite what you may here, there is more freedom in the world today than there was even a few decades ago, let alone a few centuries.

I think climate change is something we need to watch and study. I think we need to make some changes, and fine people like yourself are a good example of why I believe we will be OK.

mattclary
10-11-2007, 01:47 PM
Of course, I would never think you would.



I don't think that is what it is about. It could be any point on the graph, it doesn't really matter where we are. However, it is not where we are (or end up for that matter), it's the rate at which this is occuring.
Past changes in our climate have both (usually) not gone at a rate at which it is currently changing. The beginning and end positions are not important.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40129000/gif/_40129722_species_extinc_gra203.gif

I feel you are not really looking at the graph, or just refuse to admit, maybe to yourself, what you see there. What I see is right there at "our" end, the climate has been more stable than anytime in the past.

I don't think those species extinctions are results of "climate change" probably "ecosystem elimination".

theo
10-11-2007, 01:48 PM
No, I don't see just death.
I've been studying for 10 years developing sustainable technologies that not only save energy, the environment and my fellow human beings but that earn me a good salary and bring joy and pleasure as well, rather than hitting you over the head with their 'greenness'. I just can't see how that could be a bad thing. Ever. I just can't see how anyone would want to take the risk of being wrong in matters like these, just because they're in a position of relative safety. You can make a positive impact on all levels here.


Sustainable technologies and processes are needed no matter WHAT happens, whether the earth warms or cools.

Pretty interesting stuff there. I did a major marketing piece a couple of years ago for a old-school barn-building company that was heavy into the reclaimed lumber business. Of course, this is one tiny aspect of a much broader subject but the sustainable resource concept still applies.

Taking wood two hundred years old and restoring it for modern use is a super way to recycle a natural resource. Now that the industry is in place for reclaimed lumber I wouldn't doubt it one bit if reclaimed lumber will be reused indefinitely (depending on its location to the elements). Turned over and over for centuries and gaining measurable value the whole while.

prospector
10-11-2007, 01:48 PM
Past changes in our climate have both (usually) not gone at a rate at which it is currently changing

It's a proven fact that it has gone FASTER. As found in the now artic region, where Mastadons were found with grasses still in stomachs and mouths when they were frozen.
Which begs the question.....
If warming is melting the polar caps now, then why was there enoug plantlife then to sustain large animals like mastadons???
Must have been pretty warm back then and for a long enough time for those plants to take hold and survive.

Maby we are just going BACK to that weather enviroment.

Exception
10-11-2007, 01:56 PM
I could take the enviroment thing more seriously (well even a grain of seriousness), if only true science is used.
True science doesn't use mabys, ifs, coulds or possablys.
Like,
correct and accurate measurements of ALL gasses produced from ALL vents at the bottom of the oceans and all the vents on land.. [etc]

Then measure that against all manmade gasses and chemical reactions.

You have any idea how much that would cost, or just that the sheer idea is completely impossible?
They can't even visit the deepest parts of our ocean. How would you suggest doing something like this?
you can be far smarter about it, and hey, presto, they have been.


It's hard to take seriously those who supposidly want to protect the enviroment yet will stop a 50 acre powerplant go up yet turn around and want a 10,000 acre field of airplane propellers.
Which destroys more land?

Wind turbines do not destroy land. It's perfectly useable while a turbine is on it. Also, building a power plant has nothing to do with the land it's on. Whoever said that? You're comparing pears and apples. It's about their exhaust. even if you do not believe in global climate change, will you at least believe the docters that say our urban environment is rapidly becoming a cancerous pollution hell in which people will get sick? Couple of packets of cigarettes a day for just walking around in Mexico city.


It's hard to take seriously those who supposidly want to protect the enviroment yet will stop a 1 acre footprint of an oilwellhead, yet want a 100 acre field of solar panels all over the place. Which destroys more land?

Neither destroys land. It's totally irrelevant to a land-based discussion.
And who on earth is proposing 100 acre fields of solar panels? Seriously! Noone! It's not a viable solution. PV's are for on your roof.


It's hard to take seriously those who supposidly want to protect the enviroment yet will not invest their own money, either as a person or as a group of investors, into alternative choices, but will force all of us to conform to their ways without a choice.

Speak for yourself.
Most countries as a whole are doing thousandfold what the Us is doing, and you're still complaining?
That's hypocritical.
All europeans pay triple gas prices because they're not as insane to subsidize gas prices with a war. Subsidizing petrol with blood. Good job there being an 'investor'.


It's hard to take seriously those who supposidly want to protect the enviroment yet will stop anyone from going into woods and collecting dead trees and limbs and brush for firewood (which will be burnt over the course of many months) thereby cutting down on the spread and or speed of a wildfire, yet be ok with a forest fire that burns all that wood and many trees in the course of a week or 2, burning thousands of acres of trees.

What?
Is this some local ordinance you're upset about? Go yell at your politicians for being fruitbaskets. It has nothing to do with the environment.


It's hard to take seriously those who supposidly want to protect the enviroment yet will stop anyone from cutting roads (paved or otherwise) into forests,and yet again be ok with a forest fire that burns all that wood and many trees in the course of a week or 2, burning thousands of acres of trees.

A moderate forest fire is good for a forest every now and then. The trees usually don't die and many organism thrive on such occurances. Actually, forestry departments often set fire to areas of land or forest BECAUSE it is good for them. Heavy particulate matter from exhaust pipes is, quite obviously, not. Read some books on ecology before you lash out on this kind of thing.
It's so easy to criticise while standing on the side line.

All your claims are easily refuted. They just hold no value. And they're not productive nor incite civil discussion.
Want to do something, and worried about your money? Go stop all those wars you're fighting, and put the money in your pocket. World would instantly be a much better place. Ok, your gas price would go up, but hey, you just paid half your taxes! You can spend it on that fuel, or, you can buy a bicycle and save that cash to buy ecology books! yaay!

prospector
10-11-2007, 02:26 PM
You have any idea how much that would cost,
Does it matter? Facts need to be proven. if Enviromentalists want 'street cred' then they need to prove their assertions that can then be verified.


Wind turbines do not destroy land. It's perfectly useable while a turbine is on it.
It is? try to go on that land and use it for something. Not only can you not use it..you can't get on it TO use it. So what use to be public land is now gone.


And who on earth is proposing 100 acre fields of solar panels? Seriously! Noone! It's not a viable solution. PV's are for on your roof.

Are you sure?? :D :D You need to come out to Calif and see them being built.
And again, much public land gone, unusable.
And as calif goes, so others are forced to go to.


Most countries as a whole are doing thousandfold what the Us is doing, and you're still complaining?
proving my point...govt means taxes
Single owner or multi investor companies use no taxes.


Is this some local ordinance you're upset about? Go yell at your politicians for being fruitbaskets. It has nothing to do with the environment.

Local ordinence??? No sorry to say, try ANY place in west that's under thumb of the 9th circuit court lakies of the enviromentalists. Don't know if they have them back east yet (weren't invented yet when I lived in RI) but out here we have something called 'Wild wilderness areas' (federal land areas), that have fines of $10,000 and or 30 days in jail for anyone removing a rock or leaf or anything naturally found in them. You have to get permission just to walk in them. This is not local..this is federal land...supposedly owned by me as a taxpayer that I can't enjoy.

Lightwolf
10-11-2007, 02:40 PM
Even by your statement above, how do you see 1-2 degrees as a 10 fold increase?
We are talking about the rate of change. I even made stupid analogies to make that clear ;)
1°-2° within 100 years makes a big difference opposed to 3° in ten thousand years. The horizontal part of your graph is the problem, not the vertical.
How many generations are 100 and how many are 10.000? and if you see evolution as a valid theory, which of the above givey a species a higher chance to adapt?

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
10-11-2007, 02:49 PM
It is? try to go on that land and use it for something. Not only can you not use it..you can't get on it TO use it. So what use to be public land is now gone.
Yeah, I can see all the acres of land that aren't accessible: ;)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Turbines_4013732_30a.jpg
If that is your concern then complain about the the trends for suburbia. A lot more good soil is wasted there.

Cheers,
Mike

Exception
10-11-2007, 02:58 PM
Does it matter? Facts need to be proven. if Enviromentalists want 'street cred' then they need to prove their assertions that can then be verified.

"street cred"?!!
Holy smokes.

YES it matters!
It'd cost uncountable times more to do your suggested testing than to send everyone to mars and have just you and I living here sipping on pina colladas.

In any case, there's enough 'proof' out there in terms of concencus. What other proof do you want? Aspirin only 'works' due to concencus. There's never absolsute proof.


It is? try to go on that land and use it for something. Not only can you not use it..you can't get on it TO use it. So what use to be public land is now gone.

Um, you mean like agrculture? Like, what's being done with all the windmills, um, pretty much, um, everywhere?

http://www.solidarityeconomy.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/Turbines_Cows.jpg
http://www.jsw.co.jp/en/product/ecology/wind/image/photo/farm.jpg

Have you ever even seen them on anything BUT farmland?
Perhaps arid land?
... arid unuseable land in the first place?

http://www.the-eic.com/News/images/RockRiver(Shell)WINDFARM.jpg

C'mon.

I can walk to the base of any wind turbine and touch it. In that respect their footprint is even smaller than conventional high voltage masts which are in useable land everywhere. Seriously. Moot point.


Are you sure?? :D :D You need to come out to Calif and see them being built. And again, much public land gone, unusable.
And as calif goes, so others are forced to go to.

I have been to California. I have seen mirror plants but not Pv plants. Have you been to the Netherlands?
First off, IF they were building anything with solar power, I'd guess, and would be pretty sure they wouldn't be solar panels. It'd be a mirror plant.
Second, um, I'm getting sucked into this. this is NOT a land use discussion. Land-use is only rarely even a topic. You're totally arguing about the wrong point. It makes no sense at all.


proving my point...govt means taxes
Single owner or multi investor companies use no taxes.

What are you on about? You make no sense.
Single owner what? multi investor what?
Governments pay for electrical plants. Wether it is renewable or coal. Renewable energy is free beyond the capital cost and maintenance. Coal costs money every day. It's about HOW you spend taxes, not about increasing them. Anyway, we had this discussion before several months before, so it makes no sense doing it again. Your arguments simple slide off like butter on an inclined hot non-stick pan.


Local ordinence??? No sorry to say, try ANY place in west that's under thumb of the 9th circuit court lakies of the enviromentalists. Don't know if they have them back east yet (weren't invented yet when I lived in RI) but out here we have something called 'Wild wilderness areas' (federal land areas), that have fines of $10,000 and or 30 days in jail for anyone removing a rock or leaf or anything naturally found in them. You have to get permission just to walk in them. This is not local..this is federal land...supposedly owned by me as a taxpayer that I can't enjoy.

You own nothing but whatever you own the deed to, you live in America man, China and Saudi Arabia own those forests. Look at your national debt. Those laws are there to prevent people doing stupid things in forests, because not everyone is there to enjoy the wilderness and take some dried leafs home. Don't you understand that?
If you're concerned with that topic, I'd suggest reading up on the natural land-preservation versus land-conservation debate and act, and we can go somewhere with this. This is not even an 'environmentalist' issue, but if you want to push people into political corners, go ahead, I won't be apart of it.

*Pete*
10-11-2007, 02:59 PM
Pollution is not a local problem..pollution in USA is not an american problem, it is a global problem, same with pollution in China, Europe...everywhere, it is global and affects all of us.

think of being at a bus stop, ten persons stand there with you, one of them start smoking...fine for him, he enjoys it, while the rest of the people at the bus stop will inhale the smoke passively and get exactly the same problems as the smoker himself.

is it responsible behavior?

if you ask the smoker to stop smoking becouse all the others at the bus stop just quit smoking, and cant stand the smoke anymore..how rude to continue smoking. isnt it?


many here speak about the money, the cost that will come with stopping pollution.

jobs lost...oh, big drama.

what about new jobs created, to develope new, better technology to replace the old polluting technology, what about making everything more efficient in order to save money and climate?

go to your local shop, look at a bag with candies...its a plastic bag, with all the candies wrapped in small plastic bags, inside the plastic bag.

is it necessary?...look how much garbage comes out every day from your home, think about if it has to be like that, and how it was before.

before when you bought meat, it was packed in paper...today it is plastic.
does it taste better?


it is not really about big changes to our lifes, to reduce the pollution, it is simply to waste less materials or change to something that we can re-use later.

a more efficient world is better for all of us, and much cleaner.

prospector
10-11-2007, 03:39 PM
there's enough 'proof' out there in terms of concencus.
Consensus is not proof

the consensus was the earth was flat
the consensus was the earth was center of universe

Why can't people who don't believe the global warming crowd, ask for proof of THEIR numbers??????
THEY are putting forth the numbers that we are killing the planet. It's THEIR numbers that stupid laws are being based on. Why can't THEY PROVE IT ????
Why do we as non-believers not see their scientific tests that TRUE numbers were gathered from???

WHY can't THEY PROVE THREIR FACTS???

They say they have the facts......well let the rest of us check their facts, let the rest of us reproduce their facts.
Facts can be reproduced and proven by anyone at anytime at anyplace.
Let the rest of us prove their facts are truly facts and not made up feel-good numbers.

As for the airplane props...the ones on private property are also being paid for the use of the land and can be used for farming or wherever the turbines are put on private property. the 3rd pic is from just south of me on interstate 10 in calif (or a field just like it), those are fenced off, you cannot go on them to 'touch' them.


Perhaps arid land?
... arid unuseable land in the first place?
no such thing as 'unusable' land
I use to go gold panning on those lands..they were very usable for me. Now that is gone.

And land use has everything to do with enviromentalism..it is enviromentalist who vote for goofy laws that have to do with land use, smoke in the air, water running thru rivers, allowing mosquitoes to flourish because they don't like certain sprays, AND GLOBAL WARMING LAWS....it's all the same religion.

archijam
10-11-2007, 04:27 PM
Consensus is I need oxygen to breathe.

prospector
10-11-2007, 04:32 PM
the consensus would be wrong :D
Oxygen is a poison, you cannot breathe pure oxygen and live. you need oxygen as a percentage of the total volume of air inhaled. Also as very deep sea divers show, you can breath liquid and not just atmosphere.

prospector
10-11-2007, 04:39 PM
OOPS, sorry, read the statement wrong :D
the consensus is still wrong tho :D :D
you need oxygen to live
you need chest muscle to contract and expand to breath, thereby forming expulsion and inhalation of atmosphere (or liquid if super deep sea diving)

Exception
10-11-2007, 05:18 PM
They they they.

Can't you think outside of a binary opposition?
Wake up, there's no 'they', or 'us'.

If anything it's the individual versus the corporation. In that sense 'us' is all of us and 'they' is also all of us.



no such thing as 'unusable' land
I use to go gold panning on those lands..they were very usable for me. Now that is gone.

If you would have used less energy you wouldn't have needed the extra powerplant, renewable or otherwise. However, you did use the extra energy. So now you can choose between building something that will cost you money once and will be relatively cheap for a long time, while not harming the environment, or you can pay for something now that will cost you for as long as it operates, and also harm the environment.
You can also choose to use less energy.

You choose.

By the way, your argument is still completely unfounded and has nothing to do with environmentalism. It's your personal 'gold hunting' you're missing. Too bad for you. Should have turned off the light at night.


Consensus is not proof

Well then I suggest stop taking medicine, if I were you.
Consensus does not mean 'a bunch of stupid people happen to think this way', as your examples with a flat earth suggest. It's people that have studied for this and know a hell of a lot more about it than you do. Your previous suggestions already laying bare a fundamental lack of understanding of ecology and ecosystems, not to mention the whole political ethical or regulative debate. You're just kinda pissing in the dark here.

IMI
10-11-2007, 06:33 PM
I'd still like to see all these changes being implemented, such as pollution control, alternative fuels, alternative energy and so on and so on without the need to have all the arguments about whether GW is real or not.
Myself? I care about the environment and the atmosphere and about those things, but it seems the minute someone says, "Don't pollute! Don't burn those leaves in your backyard!", someone else says, "Why? because of Global Warming? Get a grip!"
And then instead of it being a matter of just simply being good to our home, it becomes a heated political debate which gets nothing accomplished except to help one party to win elections.
It's stupid to argue about whether or not there's global warming and to make it a political issue. It's stupid to threaten people to not pollute, etc, etc because of GW, and it's stupid to say, "GW hasn't been proved, and until it is, We're gonna burn 6o million tons of coal here every year..."
GW hasn't been proven or disproved, but the effects of pollution sure have been. Considering that, it should be fairly obvious to see what we should do as our population increases exponentially.

I'm not calling anybody here stupid for arguing these things, really. it's really quite interesting. :)
I just mean the scientists, societies, and governments as a whole should drop the whole issue of whether or not it is actually happening, and just get on with "cleaner" energy plans.

2BitSculptor
10-11-2007, 07:44 PM
I just mean the scientists, societies, and governments as a whole should drop the whole issue of whether or not it is actually happening, and just get on with "cleaner" energy plans.


:agree: :thumbsup:

Chuck

prospector
10-11-2007, 07:52 PM
Consensus does not mean 'a bunch of stupid people happen to think this way', as your examples with a flat earth suggest

Funny..but typical...The WHOLE population of the planet thought that, not a bunch of stupid people, till someone proved them wrong....there was someone who actually wanted facts...not consensius.


Wake up, there's no 'they', or 'us'.

there's always a they and us.

'they' are the ones who would pass on theories as fact and make 'us' spend money 'we' don't think is needed to spend in 'they're' way.

But the question is still.....why can't we check their facts???
Where is the hard solid repeatible PROOF?

IMI
10-11-2007, 08:02 PM
No offense intended, but it seems to me that demanding proof of it before changing anything is just a way to ease one's conscience while continuing to pollute and waste resources on inefficient, non - replenish-able energy sources.

If I were to pour 30,000 gallons of crude oil into a small pond, I could pretty much sit back and watch the effects of it before it gets dark outside...
So why do we need proof to know that all the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide and other pollutants we pump into the atmosphere every day is anything short of a bad thing at best?

prospector
10-11-2007, 08:46 PM
none taken :)
A long time ago, the same people or maby the same mindset people tried to make us believe in global cooling..we were all going to freeze to death in our tracks like the mastadons. Many laws were passed and much money was spent to study it and try to stop it.
It never even came close.
So in order to keep their government funds (ie grants) coming there had to be another earthwide crisis.....the ozone holes........when the holes started closing and nothing was borne from that except many more laws and money spent......
so another had to be devised......
snowey owls....they could ONLY live in virgin forests, so it was proven that there are no virgin forests so they said we mean 'old growth forests'....so many laws were passed, people put out of work, money spent...till was proven that snowey owls could live in a K Mart sign.
but instead of those people getting real jobs..again...they wanted that free govt grant money coming in..
a new crisis...global warming......

Soooo we just want hard provable repeatible facts from them.

tho I see nothing wrong with global warming (the food crops just move north, Iowa grows bananas, Canada grows melons and cotton, we all use less heating oil), and I could have halfheartedly went along with some of their stuff, when they say mankind is destroying the planet...well there is where I draw the line and demand proof first.
If we exploded every atomic bomb, regular bomb, hand grenade, firework, bullet, caps from cap gun at the same instant, we could not destroy the planet...it would still be here going on it's merry way around the sun.
So automatically I know they are lying. We could never ever possably destroy the planet.

theo
10-11-2007, 09:03 PM
So why do we need proof to know that all the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide and other pollutants we pump into the atmosphere every day is anything short of a bad thing at best?

To be fair, you and I don't require proof because our actions are not dependent on a specific result or outcome.

We are genetically predisposed in temperament and personality to connect with our natural surroundings in a meaningful way. More than likely, our personality types and the emotional gradients we consist of will be far more inclined to be interested in conservation and "greenish" activities no matter what is happening in the environment.

Now, to continue this "fair" argument, to elicit movement in our favor from an opposing and contradictory viewpoint a proof is usually required.

As much as I am opposed to Prospector's view, his desire for more proof as incentive to change is not necessarily a moot request. I would wager that the other side would require much the same if the pollutionists decided that man has no impact so let's have a carbon party.

I don't know that I see a solid consensus on the global warming issue. And I certainly don't think that consensus should ever be considered proof or even close to it. Consensus is just a collective decision, it isn't a proof.

As far as the wind turbines go... huge noise and huge eyesores. Which is why a lot of these things are being constructed on the high seas whenever one (a sea) happens to be in the area.

IMI
10-11-2007, 09:08 PM
I agree we could never possibly destroy the planet, but we could in fact make it uninhabitable or at best, very dangerous, through rampant pollution.
However, the pollution we have now is nothing compared to, say, four billion years ago, when pretty much nothing could live here. Obviously, the earth got over it. ;)

And, it would get over it again, eventually.

But I see what you're saying, and it's not too far-removed from what I'm saying - the politicization of a potentially serious issue as a means for gaining power, not for doing our species a favor.

Those who spread the lies and half-truths for such ends should be called to task, yes, but I still think that we shouldn't base our environmental policy on that debate alone. Common sense is good enough, or so I would think.

Nor should we do ridiculously radical knee-jerk things, but I think there's got to be a happy medium where we can maintain our standard of living and still be less toxic.

Steamthrower
10-11-2007, 09:10 PM
As far as the wind turbines go... huge noise and huge eyesores. Which is why a lot of these things are being constructed on the high seas whenever one (a sea) happens to be in the area.

I once stood on the shore of the North Sea and looked north towards Norway (this is at Emden, I think). There are wind turbines in the distance. Odd thing is, the Green Party, basically the German treehuggers, were wanting them banned because "birds flew into the blades and got killed". So then we walk through a village and see a "green" house. Made COMPLETELY OF CEDAR AND GLASS! Which all seems to me to point to two things: if environmentalists really want to save the world, #1, don't build your houses out of wood, and #2, find a way to use clean electricity. And how do you make clean electricity? Not coal. Not nuclear plants. Not wind turbines apparently. Not solar panels apparently. So...how? Run around around and around in a cylindrical cage?

That's what happens when policy takes precedence over principle.

IMI
10-11-2007, 09:18 PM
We are genetically predisposed in temperament and personality to connect with our natural surroundings in a meaningful way. More than likely, our personality types and the emotional gradients we consist of will be far more inclined to be interested in conservation and "greenish" activities no matter what is happening in the environment.


Yup, pretty much. I've been doing outdoorsy things all my life, as long as I can remember. I grew up in some really beautiful, pristine, clean mountains in Pennsylvania, camping, fishing, and hunting, and always being outside. I still do those things when I have a chance.
To me, there's little more depressing than seeing a wooded area that should be teeming with life, but has been killed off due to someone's quest for cash due to either development or resource mining.
(Or even some idiot that leaves his trash at his campsite because it might spill on his BMW's trunk liner. ;) )

I guess I'm getting off the subject of GW, but it's basically just pollution control they're trying to push, essentially, as well as conservation and recycling. Although I disapprove of their methods, I don't see much wrong with that. :)

theo
10-11-2007, 09:23 PM
An alarmist article written in '89. One would of thunk it was penned yesterday.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,956627,00.html

Just think, if all you good people procreate less we can somehow change the future of the world. Procreate less and you won't have enough taxes to cover your social security check and medicaid, ya numchuck.

This is extremist rhetoric clouding a very important issue. This is what makes people like Prospector freak. Well, not freak, maybe, but run around in circles dargging their earlobes on the dirtycrete while keyboard-bashing their heads into bloody, pulpy messes.

Sande
10-12-2007, 12:34 AM
I could take the enviroment thing more seriously (well even a grain of seriousness), if only true science is used.
True science doesn't use mabys, ifs, coulds or possablys.

I'm sorry, but it seems that you have no idea of what you are talking about and what the nature of "true science" is. Fallibility is always present in "true science" - when you want certainty and infallibility, you are heading towards religion...

As of now, the vast majority of credible scientist are behind global warming theory. Of course they could be wrong, that's the very nature of science, but I'm pretty sure the science behind their theories is very true.

*Pete*
10-12-2007, 12:57 AM
#1, don't build your houses out of wood, and #2, find a way to use clean electricity.

#1, wooden houses are not considered pollutive.

wood is a replenishable resource and if it is produced the same way as in Finland, it is even good for the enviroment.

In Finland, cutting a tree means planting an other...Finland is the 3:rd most forested nation in the world, the same time as it has a huge wood export industry.

producing metal, glass, cement and even bricks for houses are all far more pollutive options to choose.

and we have to live somewhere, dont we?

#2. there are technologies that are clean (100%) and producing electricity..

Hydro energy, electricity produced by water in rivers forcing large turbines to move...absolutely nonpllutant.

Solar power...technology is fast improving, today it is expensive and not very effective, but it is non pollutant, tomorows technology will be cheaper and far more effective, i would believe this to be our main energy source in the future.

Wind power...mentioned earlier on these forums...so what if it kills birds? so does cars and cats, to mention a few..besides it should be relatively easy to stop birds from flying into them anyway.

Wave power..another new technology, nonpolluting and discrete..just a floating object which will generate energy by getting moved up and down by the waves.


and no..it is not enough to support our need for electricity alone, not today...but work is being done to deal with that.

SplineGod
10-12-2007, 02:17 AM
Science is a bit like religion. Its based on evidence and evidence is always subject to interpretation. The vast majority of people accept most of what they hear on faith without having a clue what is actually true. In that sense theres no such thing as pure science. Science is only as accurate as we are led to believe it is.

As far as things that are clean or nonpolluting that is also a myth. Creating a dam to use hydrothermal energy generates a lot of pollution in the process. Large vehicles burn fuel. Roads are cut, trees cut down, mountains moved, wildlife displaced or killed and so on. The metals and materials used in the construction of dams come from industries that pollute.
The process used to create solar cells uses some pretty toxic materials too.

Sande
10-12-2007, 03:16 AM
Science is a bit like religion. Its based on evidence and evidence is always subject to interpretation. The vast majority of people accept most of what they hear on faith without having a clue what is actually true. In that sense theres no such thing as pure science. Science is only as accurate as we are led to believe it is.
I really don't know what you mean with "pure science." The whole issue of interpreting evidence and updating theories when new evidence emerges is the whole core of science. Some people may somehow view science as their religion, but science itself has nothing to do with religion.

*Pete*
10-12-2007, 04:32 AM
As far as things that are clean or nonpolluting that is also a myth. Creating a dam to use hydrothermal energy generates a lot of pollution in the process. Large vehicles burn fuel. Roads are cut, trees cut down, mountains moved, wildlife displaced or killed and so on. The metals and materials used in the construction of dams come from industries that pollute.
The process used to create solar cells uses some pretty toxic materials too.

...the very air we breath out is polluting the planet, large amounts of metan gas is released every time you fart..so dont eat beans if you care for the enviroment.


pollution is everywhere, natural and manmade...but needless pollution is not necessary.

how many of you guys smoke?..some do im sure...did you ever pay attention to the filter inside the cigarrette?..it is there to remove some of the worse partictles and stop them entering your lungs...it will not remove it all, but it helps you live a little longer.

a simple thing to decrease pollution is to force the industry to use similiar filters...cars already come with such filters built in to reduce the pollution to the minimum (or atleast less pollution that without it).

why is it such a problem for some to agree on?........talk about science being unprecise, things costing money, political agenda and general refusal to agree on anything that will improve the life for not only us, but our children.

it reminds me of the gun discussion in the church thread...im willing to agree on some, theoretical points in favour for the pro-gun people, but when it comes to pollution and the need to reduce it, i cant understand the way people think when they disagree on that.

major cities have a halo of pollution, easily visible at sunset...we live in those cities, and everytime we go out from the city and to the nature..we all love the fresh air that we can breath there.

why not improve the air in the cities, best as we can?...ignore science if you like, but look at the facts that are right in front of your nose.....go stand next to a highway and take a deep breath.

remember the feeling and then go to a forest outside the city and take a deep breath...the difference is huge, and this is man made pollution we are talking about...but it is only one of the many different ways we pollute.


again....please do what i wrote abowe, and then come back and try to argue against reducing pollution.

mattclary
10-12-2007, 04:32 AM
We are talking about the rate of change. I even made stupid analogies to make that clear ;)
1°-2° within 100 years makes a big difference opposed to 3° in ten thousand years. The horizontal part of your graph is the problem, not the vertical.
How many generations are 100 and how many are 10.000? and if you see evolution as a valid theory, which of the above givey a species a higher chance to adapt?


Mike, please observe the data between the red lines and explain to me how you see that the climate is changing faster than ever before. Explain to me how it is not actually holding closer to a baseline than ever before. Looking at this graph, 3 degrees OR MORE is not unusual in 100 years, worst case 1000 (not 10,000). Nearly vertical line mean rapid change.

Lightwolf
10-12-2007, 04:35 AM
Mike, please observe the data between the red lines and explain to me how you see that the climate is changing faster than ever before. Explain to me how it is not actually holding closer to a baseline than ever before.
It doesn't because it would be a on a sub pixel scale. That's why you should go and seek out other data. And to be honest, googling for 100 year climate changes is easy enough.
And that is why your graph says absolutely nothing, it isn't relevant to the issues at hand because it displays changes over a large, very large period of time (some would say it even shows data from a time when the earth didn't even exist, but that's another topic ;) ).

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
10-12-2007, 04:42 AM
It doesn't because it would be a on a sub pixel scale. That's why you should go and seek out other data. And to be honest, googling for 100 year climate changes is easy enough.
And that is why your graph says absolutely nothing, it isn't relevant to the issues at hand because it displays changes over a large, very large period of time (some would say it even shows data from a time when the earth didn't even exist, but that's another topic ;) ).


Mike, if I test the voltage across a 12V circuit and set my scale to millivolts, I will probably see HUGE fluctuations, that does not mean the circuit is unstable. You obviously have your preconceived notions and don't wish to budge.

mattclary
10-12-2007, 04:46 AM
And that is why your graph says absolutely nothing, it isn't relevant to the issues at hand because it displays changes over a large, very large period of time

Sounds like dogma to me. The earth is flat, we can see it is flat.

Lightwolf
10-12-2007, 04:53 AM
Sounds like dogma to me. The earth is flat, we can see it is flat.
Actually, you can see it isn't and even the old greeks debunked that one.
But, your graph has about the same relevance as pirates vs. temperature.
Does it show short term changes? No. What is supposed to be affecting us now? Short term changes, right. So what is the relevance of pointing at long term changes?

Cheers,
Mike

Glendalough
10-12-2007, 05:21 AM
Don't know where people are getting this idea that there is no proof. Science is nothing like religion and whether people believe or not it doesn't change the facts. Really if you want to persuade people (who don't want to know) that DNA is a fact it could be impossible.

Find it really depressing that some here who should know better are PRETENDING to be so ignorant. I think they are trying to be argumentative.

Ice cores they have recently got from both polar regions are one of many tested and true scientific methods being used to determine the past of this climate. If you don't know about these, really, its like talking about DNA to cavemen.

From the information that these reveal, (and they all correlate with each other), it appears that such a warming as at present is unprecedented in the last 40 to 60 thousand years, don't know the exact figure.

This is only one of many technologies used in this area, the same sort of technologies that got us to the moon, and we didn't have to know the why and how of everything with uncontested proof to do it.

mattclary
10-12-2007, 05:30 AM
Don't know where people are getting this idea that there is no proof. Science is nothing like religion and whether people believe or not it doesn't change the facts. Really if you want to persuade people (who don't want to know) that DNA is a fact it could be impossible.

Find it really depressing that some here who should know better are PRETENDING to be so ignorant. I think they are trying to be argumentative.

Ice cores they have recently got from both polar regions are one of many tested and true scientific methods being used to determine the past of this climate. If you don't know about these, really, its like talking about DNA to cavemen.

From the information that these reveal, (and they all correlate with each other), it appears that such a warming as at present is unprecedented in the last 40 to 60 thousand years, don't know the exact figure.

This is only one of many technologies used in this area, the same sort of technologies that got us to the moon, and we didn't have to know the why and how of everything with uncontested proof to do it.

Uhhh huh....

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Lightwolf
10-12-2007, 05:43 AM
Uhhh huh....

Yee-haw...

I can link too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Glendalough
10-12-2007, 05:52 AM
Uhhh huh....

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

This stuff is all out dated, a lot has happened in the past few years.

Something just happened in the past few minutes.
Nobel Peace Prize:

http://www.nytimes.com/

Sande
10-12-2007, 05:55 AM
Uhhh huh....

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Yep, Hieb seems to be a popular link choice among those who oppose the global warming.

I go even further than just linking, I also quote! :D

"If I am looking for an 'education' on mining engineering, I would possibly consult Monte Hieb, since he worked as chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety."

"But he is not a climate scientist, which is why he has not published any scientific papers on causes of global warming."

"If Hieb is not interested in advancing scientific understanding via the time-honoured peer-review method, it's most likely that his agenda is to create the impression that there is scientific doubt about global warming. A conspiracy? Who benefits - well, his employer - the coal industry. While the public believes there is doubt among scientists, there is less political will for a carbon tax. So people like Hieb publish junk science to create the public conditions that help the fossil-fuel industry stall the inevitable tax on carbon emissions."
Global Warming Watch Blog (http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2006/04/end-of-our-epoch-all-in-good-time-2.html)

mattclary
10-12-2007, 07:54 AM
This stuff is all out dated, a lot has happened in the past few years.

Something just happened in the past few minutes.
Nobel Peace Prize:

http://www.nytimes.com/


Your high-priest of your eco religion needs to get his house in order.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

theo
10-12-2007, 08:11 AM
Actually, you can see it isn't and even the old greeks debunked that one.


But, but... what da 'bout the opposing [drum roll please with a bevy of tin horns tooting raucously] consensus that left our little mediterranean pencil heads wallowing in the dust plume? :thumbsup:

Just poking at the consensus crowd.

Leave me alone global warmingistas I am FOR conservation, sustainable technology and just plain ol', good, clean non-pollutive fun on the blue globe. Don't know what more you expect frum (yes, misspelled on purpose simply because I felt like inseting a "u" when it is against current standards to do so) from little ol' US superpower-bred me.:D

Lightwolf
10-12-2007, 08:14 AM
Leave me alone global warmingistas I am FOR conservation, sustainable technology and just plain ol', good, clean non-pollutive fun on the blue globe.
Well, in that case you have nothig to complain about, do you? I mean, heck, I'm not even an all out nature person - no way. I just simply think it makes sense to behave responsibly.

Cheers,
Mike

Steamthrower
10-12-2007, 08:15 AM
The earth is not flat, idiots! It's spherical and hollow, and there's an entire civilisation beneath us with ancient magic and it's all a conspiracy theory and aliens really rule the White House and Osama Bin Laden was actually a neo-Nazi bred from Hitler's genes in Argentina after they secreted detonated a nuclear bomb, but of course that was all after Chernobyl, which was engineered by JFK, whose head is being examined in Communist China, and Al Gore's house is actually the Tennessee headquarters of Greenpeace.

Sorry ;)

It's all kind of humorous to me.

theo
10-12-2007, 08:18 AM
Well, in that case you have nothig to complain about, do you? I mean, heck, I'm not even an all out nature person - no way. I just simply think it makes sense to behave responsibly.

Cheers,
Mike

Hmmm, not sure if was actually complaining about anything. :question:

Lightwolf
10-12-2007, 08:28 AM
Hmmm, not sure if was actually complaining about anything. :question:

Leave me alone global warmingistas...
:D

Cheers,
Mike

prospector
10-12-2007, 08:39 AM
mattclary..liked the first link :D :D

I cracked up on this line;
2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks
then
Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases
there is just too much farting going on :D :D :D

but the quotes are especially enlightning

we don't have to see any other evidence other than their own statements to see the joke about GW.

Glendalough
10-12-2007, 08:51 AM
You guys should meet with your counterpart Conspiracy Theorists who don't believe the Americans made it to the moon.

theo
10-12-2007, 08:55 AM
:D

Cheers,
Mike

Ah, that comment was typed with tongue firmly fastened to the inner wall of my left cheek.

I think for good measure I'll lob a few bullets atcha... I am gun-person after all and this is how we deal with confrontation, however slight- :2guns: :2guns:

:D -just in case.

Lightwolf
10-12-2007, 08:58 AM
:D -just in case.
:question: :twak: :ohmy: no need for that :D

Cheers,
Mike

*Pete*
10-12-2007, 08:59 AM
we don't have to see any other evidence other than their own statements to see the joke about GW.


for a long time i was staring at this statement, automatically thinking that GW somehow meant George Bush...crazy.

as for global warming, i fail to see the joke in it.

scientists all agree that we, humans, play a part in warming up the globe..they disagree on how big part we play though, but this is irrevelant.

the fact is, that 99% of all scientists who have anything to do with the gw agree on that we do warm up the planet, and then there is you, and a few others hard headed (soft headed in your case, judging from the avatar) who disagree with those who for sure know what they are speaking about, who has actually studied these changes for a long time already...


of the predictions made by the scientists in the past...the most pessimistic ones have been most accurate, i find it scary..not the least bit funny to me.

Lightwolf
10-12-2007, 09:02 AM
...i find it scary..not the least bit funny to me.
Maybe that's why people ignore it. It ought to be dressed up in a funny costume and crack some bad jokes. That might sell the concept better in an attention driven economy ;)

Cheers,
Mike

prospector
10-12-2007, 09:23 AM
*Pete*
did you actually read the quotes?
These are their own words about GW, we don't make them up. Those are the 'leaders' of the GW crowd.

If they admit that they (and I'm going to be nice here) 'embellish' their 'facts', what does that really say about the GW scare?

spec24
10-12-2007, 09:41 AM
[QUOTE=You know what is costing your American taxpayer's half of what you're paying? War.[/QUOTE]

No, social programs are what is costing tax payers the most. A combined total of ~$1.6 trillion as apposed to the wars $699 billion for 2007.
I also get aggrivated at the idea that the US doesn't care about the environment or that "it" (the US) isn't doing anything when the opposite is true. $33.1 billion spent on natural resources and the environment by taxpayer money (NOT the government - we ARE the government). Plus tax incentives for people to be more environmentally conscious (how it's the goverment's job to bribe people into acting the way THEY want is beyond me). We have some of the most stringent emissions standards in the world. We also pour billions in private and federal funds into research for ""alternative energy." And there is no such thing as free energy - it will always cost the consumer something.
And check out the Advanced Energy Initiative: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-6.html

And on Global Warming/Climate Change it's like any other science. You evaluate the available information and form a theory. Either the evidence fits your theory or it doesn't. As more information becomes available it may show that the current ideas are flawed, or it may strengthen the current theory. In America we should be free to live our lives as WE see fit, not the way the government sees it or the rest of the planet. Of course it seems to me that loving the environment and doing what you can to help out would be a reasonable prospect, but I'm not about to support any law to make it so.

It's like people in their "fuel efficient" Mercedes', Nissan's, Lexus' flying past me on the highway doing 90-100mph, slamming on their breaks as to not hit the guy in front of them, and then slamming the accelerator back to the floor to pass whoever was in their way while I'm mainting a nice steady speed down the highway in my EVIL SUV. I guess they figure they're saving the planet so much by having an "efficient" vehicle that it's okay to burn a little more with their idiotic driving practices.

Sande
10-12-2007, 10:21 AM
In America we should be free to live our lives as WE see fit, not the way the government sees it or the rest of the planet.
God bless United States of Arrogance. :D

Andyjaggy
10-12-2007, 10:38 AM
This stuff is all out dated, a lot has happened in the past few years.

Something just happened in the past few minutes.
Nobel Peace Prize:

http://www.nytimes.com/

The fact that Gore won the Nobel Prize makes me sad.

*Pete*
10-12-2007, 10:42 AM
*Pete*
did you actually read the quotes?
These are their own words about GW, we don't make them up. Those are the 'leaders' of the GW crowd.



*Pete*...the very air we breath out is polluting the planet, large amounts of metan gas is released every time you fart..so dont eat beans if you care for the enviroment.

I know that...you know that, we all know that farting is basically releasing metan gas which in turn will pollute the planet...its not a joke, its a fact.

luckily we have an ecosystem that cleans up the metan gasses we release by farting...we always had it, its natural...we breath in oxygen, we breath out co2, plants absorb c2 and release oxygen.

its a cycle..its all natural.

the problem is, just as pure oxygen will kill us becouse we cant handle it, plants also have a limit on how much they will be able to convert co2 into oxygen.

with all the extra co2 released by cars, industry and other man made polluters on top of what the nature pollutes (farting, volcanoes etc etc(not farting volcanoes)) it becomes too much to clean.....


besides, co2 is NOT the main problem with global warming...its just one of them.

Exception
10-12-2007, 10:49 AM
if environmentalists really want to save the world, #1, don't build your houses out of wood

Um. Yes, you should.
use as much wood as possible. Growing trees sequester carbon. Cedar is cultured and harvested, not raided like the tropical rain forest. Wood is THE most environmental friendly building material on earth, unless you burn it.


I don't know that I see a solid consensus on the global warming issue. And I certainly don't think that consensus should ever be considered proof or even close to it. Consensus is just a collective decision, it isn't a proof.

Scientific consensus doesn't mean that there's a few scientists that just stick their finger in the air and say, um, yes I think it's warming up. Scientific consensus means that the majority of scientists have some way of making a rational decision on one way or the other, based on actual scientific research. Of course, like always, there's morons in the scientific community too, but I think we're up to 95% consensus now, which, as I said before, is higher than aspririn ever got.


the ozone holes........when the holes started closing and nothing was borne from that except many more laws and money spent......

HAAAA! Seriously?!
If the world hadn't swiftly acted then to ban CFK's IMMEDIATELY after the fact was known that it destroyed the ozone layer (which is 2mm thick, mind you), you and I would be fried to a crisp in 10 years time. This is one of those things that has been proven beyond any other climate theory and because the world acted in complete unison, we prevented serious danger to our health.
Seriously, read something.
Go study science for a while and learn what scientific consensus means. Learn how the things are measured as they do, then pass your judgement.
The ignorance is just falling from the sky here. You keep referring to stuff costing YOU money. absolute ********. Being more efficient and more environmentally friendly will SAVE money in the long run. Don;t you get that? Are you listening?

Exception
10-12-2007, 10:55 AM
No, social programs are what is costing tax payers the most. A combined total of ~$1.6 trillion as apposed to the wars $699 billion for 2007.

Here:
http://mibi.deviantart.com/art/Death-and-Taxes-2007-39894058
Proper sources quoted at the bottom, and other refernces given.

USA total spending, of which taxes are only a part, is 67% military.

And regarding your issues: you can quote absolute figures, and make it seem like a whole lot, but it's no secret that the US does the least of all developed countries about the environment while being the biggest polluter. Way to go.


n America we should be free to live our lives as WE see fit, not the way the government sees it or the rest of the planet.

So, if I decide I want to live my life urinating over other people's heads in the USA, because that's the lifestyle I choose, that is perfectly okay then? Because that's what's happening in the larger context you know. You import your fuel and export your waste.

Glendalough
10-12-2007, 10:57 AM
The fact that Gore won the Nobel Prize makes me sad.


Well it will probably make you happy some day and if you ever have to travel abroad (which is really not fun) it could make a big difference.

Anything that helps America's image abroad is a godsend, it's reached such a low level.

spec24
10-12-2007, 11:44 AM
God bless United States of Arrogance. :D

Maybe you should brush up on your history and discover just what this country was founded on. It 's not about arrogance. It's about freedom to live ones life as they see fit and not as the government decrees.

Exception: Death and Taxes at deviantart.com? You've got to be joking. I quoted you actual numbers of money spent. Spin it any way you want. And no, urinating on someone's head is not what freedom is about. That would be assaulting somone. If you're going to make an argument that the United States is the only nation that's guzzling down gasoline then you have some point, otherwise your analogy is rediculous.

"And regarding your issues: you can quote absolute figures, and make it seem like a whole lot, but it's no secret that the US does the least of all developed countries about the environment while being the biggest polluter. Way to go." REALLY? Can you point to one reliable source that says we are doing the LEAST of any developed country in regards to the environment or did you just make that up? I guess quoting figures and facts just gets in the way of your argument. You may want to look up the definition of
discretionary budget (which is where your figures come from). Military spending is still less than overall social spending (social security, medicare/caid, welfare, etc...).

spec24
10-12-2007, 11:59 AM
p.s. Sande, I didn't mean to come off sounding arrogant and that's not how freedom should be viewed. Obviously the old adage that the freedom to swing my fists around ends where your nose begins is where I am coming from. No one's rights are more important than anyone elses. I believe in the free market and that the intelligent and creative will prevail. I believe that the answer to the problem that this thread has been talking about lies in the private sector. That people will rise to the occasion and deal with the issues at hand. They always do. I don't believe that the government can do better - because they can't. There is indeed a market for alternative fuels and environmentally friendly consumer goods (including housing) and I trust that the free market will bring these items to fruition, and not the government forcing things down our throats.

mattclary
10-12-2007, 12:29 PM
Here you go. What fortuitous timing:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20071012_003200.html

Exception
10-12-2007, 01:13 PM
Exception: Death and Taxes at deviantart.com? You've got to be joking. I quoted you actual numbers of money spent.


Like I said, proper sources are stated at the bottom. But you don't seem to care about that sort of thing.
Here's the proper source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/

And YES, DEVIANTART. It's artists. Like us. That quote proper source material. Like the whitehouse government budget report. I read it. Did you?
Oh, here's some more...

http://www.cdi.org/issues/budget/FY03Discretionary-pr.cfm
2003: 51.3% military spending.

Yes, discretionary spending. What the government has decided on to spend from the discretionary budget. Shows exactly what your government's mind is set to.

Here's another fun one...
About 43% (420 billion) of all the money in the world spent on the military is by the US. Do you read that number?! Do you see that? You think that's even remotely close to sane?


I guess quoting figures and facts just gets in the way of your argument.

Quoting a single figure without source, reference or comparison gives absolutely no insight into any matter. You spent X on subject Y only makes sense if you know how much you spent on other things relative to that. I at least told you the reference. That's how it works you know, in publications.. referencing...

Anyway, I'm done with this.

Regarding the environmental non-action: remember kyoto... USA being the only non-binding symbolic signatory of that already weak environmental protocol? Want sources for that?

Lightwolf
10-12-2007, 01:13 PM
I believe in the free market and that the intelligent and creative will prevail.
Hasn't that one recently been debunked? Intelligence and success have no relation.

Cheers,
Mike

Exception
10-12-2007, 01:20 PM
lies in the private sector

The private sector, which is largely organized by publicly traded corporations, are a very well designed and efficient machine with a single optimalization figure: stockholder value. It is impossible for a publicly traded company to alter its operations towards a more responsible and sustainable way of operating and producing more sensible producs while still outpacing its competiton which will probably choose not to. The whole machine is rigged this way. Governments do not have this fault. There are countreis all over the world that prove time and time again that issues of poverty, crime, social inequality, general welfare, education, health, trade and sustainability are issues that can be dealt with effectively by a responsible government. Just because the Us doesn't have a responsible government, doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Exception
10-12-2007, 01:36 PM
We have some of the most stringent emissions standards in the world.

Oh I missed that funny bit of information.
Here's some reference for you:
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Fuel%20Economy%20and%20GHG%20Standards_010605_1107 19.pdf

and the image of it showing the different world areas and their MPG rating:
CHINA is doing better than the US, for heaven's sake.

spec24
10-12-2007, 01:53 PM
Like I said, proper sources are stated at the bottom. But you don't seem to care about that sort of thing.
Here's the proper source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/

And YES, DEVIANTART. It's artists. Like us. That quote proper source material. Like the whitehouse government budget report. I read it. Did you?
Oh, here's some more...

http://www.cdi.org/issues/budget/FY03Discretionary-pr.cfm
2003: 51.3% military spending.

Yes, discretionary spending. What the government has decided on to spend from the discretionary budget. Shows exactly what your government's mind is set to.

Here's another fun one...
About 43% (420 billion) of all the money in the world spent on the military is by the US. Do you read that number?! Do you see that? You think that's even remotely close to sane?



Quoting a single figure without source, reference or comparison gives absolutely no insight into any matter. You spent X on subject Y only makes sense if you know how much you spent on other things relative to that. I at least told you the reference. That's how it works you know, in publications.. referencing...

Anyway, I'm done with this.

Regarding the environmental non-action: remember kyoto... USA being the only non-binding symbolic signatory of that already weak environmental protocol? Want sources for that?

I don't know what world you're living in but the discretionary budget is money that must be APPROVED every year as apposed to the MANDATORY spending which is what will be spent every year based on the law. All you have displayed is your ignorance of what federal spending is about. You have only shown discretionary spending which is about half the picture of what the government is spending. It's a convenient political talking point but it means little since there is already plenty of cash already allocated in the mandatory budget that outweighs the military spending. It's all there in your own links but all you've looked at is the discretionary budget. Your own "artwork" link even states the case. Artists quoting proper sources? That's a new one.
You're really quite temperamental with something you've gotten wrong. Perhaps a hot cup of tea could calm you down. I hope you will be heating it with by rubbing two sticks together and not using a microwave, gas grill, electric stove, or hot water heater :D

spec24
10-12-2007, 01:58 PM
Oh I missed that funny bit of information.
Here's some reference for you:
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Fuel%20Economy%20and%20GHG%20Standards_010605_1107 19.pdf

and the image of it showing the different world areas and their MPG rating:
CHINA is doing better than the US, for heaven's sake.


MPG has nothing to do with emissions standards.

spec24
10-12-2007, 02:03 PM
Oh I missed that funny bit of information.
Here's some reference for you:
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Fuel%20Economy%20and%20GHG%20Standards_010605_1107 19.pdf

and the image of it showing the different world areas and their MPG rating:
CHINA is doing better than the US, for heaven's sake.

It's not surprising that our MPG rating is low - we easily outpace the rest of the world in the purchase and operation of SUV's. But I guess you'd be happy to make the manufacturing and sale of SUV's illegal? I won't argue that if we're going to have the laws we do on emissions of passenger cars they probably should apply to SUV's as well.

Lightwolf
10-12-2007, 02:04 PM
Obviously the old adage that the freedom to swing my fists around ends where your nose begins is where I am coming from. No one's rights are more important than anyone elses.
This is a good one. How about the right to drive when drunk (and being run over by a drunk driver), the right to smoke anywhere (and being affectied by passive smoking).
The problem we have here is that apparently many are already swinging their fists into other peoples noses, it just isn't as obvious as being hit in the face. To make matters worse it is a global issue, which means that suddenly people care that not only come from another town, city or state but... even another nation or continent.
Or are these rights exclusive, if so, where can I get a membership card? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

spec24
10-12-2007, 02:15 PM
This is a good one. How about the right to drive when drunk (and being run over by a drunk driver), the right to smoke anywhere (and being affectied by passive smoking).
The problem we have here is that apparently many are already swinging their fists into other peoples noses, it just isn't as obvious as being hit in the face. To make matters worse it is a global issue, which means that suddenly people care that not only come from another town, city or state but... even another nation or continent.
Or are these rights exclusive, if so, where can I get a membership card? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

That's what I'm talking about Lightwolf. Driving drunk IS infringing on others rights because you are now endangering people. Don't take the adage so literal :).
You can take that argument and apply it to almost anything. What shall we ban next? And when do we stop? China just may outpace the US with it's pollution. They already do people-wise. Since population is the number one problem when it comes to things like Global Warming maybe we should start mandatory sterilization for Chinese men.
What do we do? Set up international laws on how many people each country can have, how many cars, how much gas they can import, how much pollution they can make, how long we can leave our lights on? Yikes.
Thanks everyone for stimulating thought, even if some took offense when their numbers were quesitoned, now it's the weekend - everyone go have fun! :D

Jim_C
10-12-2007, 02:21 PM
, now it's the weekend - everyone go have fun! :D


Where? Outside??? Are you kidding!!????

Have you seen the latest pollution counts???!!!!!

No, no, no thank you, I am going to be right here indoors amongst my 8 computers, 26 hard drives and 12 computer screens saving the planet.

:angel:

Lightwolf
10-12-2007, 02:23 PM
That's what I'm talking about Lightwolf. Driving drunk IS infringing on others rights because you are now endangering people. Don't take the adage so literal :).
Well, that is exactly my point as well. If we screw up the global climate we are infringing on other peoples rights... and some of their most basic rights to boot.

You can take that argument and apply it to almost anything. What shall we ban next? And when do we stop? China just may outpace the US with it's pollution.
And as long as the US doesn't set an example they won't budge. Oh, and the US won't because China won't. Kindergarden, I tell 'ya.

What do we do? Set up international laws on how many people each country can have, how many cars, how much gas they can import, how much pollution they can make, how long we can leave our lights on? Yikes.
Well, at least the laws on pollution were actually discussed. I do remember some countries walking out from signing anything though - however feeble the initial requirements were. Way to go setting an example, true leadership. </dripping sarcasm>.
Honestly though, a lot of the consequences one can take (on a personal as well as on a national level) were discussed years ago (on a personal level even decades ago).

Oh, discussion is fun, I even do it on weekends :D Have a good one though!

Cheers,
Mike

Iain
10-12-2007, 02:37 PM
What do we do? Set up international laws on how many people each country can have, how many cars, how much gas they can import, how much pollution they can make, how long we can leave our lights on? Yikes.


Apart from the first one, which was quite possibly the only solution to China's population problem but even without the benefit of hindsight fundamentally a flawed and doomed decision, yes.

Wholeheartedly, yes.

Iain
10-12-2007, 02:39 PM
Well it will probably make you happy some day and if you ever have to travel abroad (which is really not fun) it could make a big difference.

Anything that helps America's image abroad is a godsend, it's reached such a low level.

How do you know? American people generally don't travel abroad, do they?
Most of them don't even have passports!

:hey:

Glendalough
10-12-2007, 02:52 PM
How do you know? American people generally don't travel abroad, do they?
Most of them don't even have passports!

:hey:

Eh Iain what are you on about?

I know because I live abroad, think about 10 million Americans living in the EU at any given time, NOT sure about the exact number.

Iain
10-12-2007, 02:55 PM
Eh Iain what are you on about?

I know because I live abroad, think about 10 million Americans living in the EU at any given time, NOT sure about the exact number.

It was a joke based on the number of Americans who don't own a passport.

Exception
10-12-2007, 02:56 PM
I don't know what world you're living in

apparently a world in which one only selectively replies to parts of a conversation that happen to be convenient for you.
I don't see how one could possibly have a civil conversation like this.


but the discretionary budget is money that must be APPROVED every year as apposed to the MANDATORY spending which is what will be spent every year based on the law.

I know exactly what it is.
I pasted this link in but that went wrong:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp
That one has total financial spending. 41%.


All you have displayed is your ignorance of what federal spending is about. You have only shown discretionary spending which is about half the picture of what the government is spending. It's a convenient political talking point but it means little since there is already plenty of cash already allocated in the mandatory budget that outweighs the military spending. It's all there in your own links but all you've looked at is the discretionary budget.

No it isn't. I looked at the total and the discretionary budget, and a comparison with the spending of other countries. But you lightfootedly stepped over that. I call that hypocrisy.
In any case, who are you to say that the rest of the world needs to learn your country's convoluted tax system that's so un-insightful it's hard to have even the remotest conversation about this. Because, YOU could make the point that veteran hospitals and a lot of other health and social services are performed by the military, making it a wholly difficult drab to navigate. And that is done on purpose, mind you. The comparative numbers with other countries do not lie, nor do the 41% 2005 total spending, and more than 60% discretionary spending. You vall the discretionary spending irrelevant? That's completely ridiculous. Above anything else it shows the political climate and intent.


Your own "artwork" link even states the case. Artists quoting proper sources? That's a new one.

How condescending. You've obviously never met a proper artist.


MPG has nothing to do with emissions standards.

Well if you even bothered to read that document, which obviously you didn't, you would see that it's a converted and normalized for emission standards, which IS an emission standard, the most useful there is. What kind of usefulness does quantitative emission standards have when you just use more fuel instead?! That's like using a liter of fuel to reduce the emission of another liter of fuel.
But because you're obviously not inclined to actually read any documents I reference, I attached the g/CO2 graph here, that was just a fewpages further into the document. Shows exactly the same horrible US emission standard reflected. Do you have enough proof now?

You call me temperamental?
Yes, I am. That is because rude and antisocial behavior upsets me. In the words of my (American) professor of engineering: "Americans are complete social klutzes", and I'd like to add that that is only part of the problem of why the whole world is calling America arrogant, ignorant and egoistic. Your way of arguing, conveniently ignoring certain parts while capitalizing on others, sly and 'funny' remarks and uncivil behavior causes people to be temperamental.

It doesn't help that you're defending a way of life which is parasitical to others. If you'd leave your little bastion of 'freedom' for a while you might get the notion that not only is America not very free in any sense, its behavior outside its border is detrimental to everyone. Freedom... ha. Freedom. Most Americans have no notion of what it even means.

I'm not inclined to carry this conversation any further. It's no use discussing with someone who doesn't want to follow the most basic rules of discussion.

Glendalough
10-12-2007, 03:03 PM
It was a joke based on the number of Americans who don't own a passport.

Yes that's for sure! And now many of them are getting in trouble because they can't identify themselves and they could just be spurious commies or even aliens. (In Ireland you need an 'Aliens' card unless from within the EU)

Exception
10-12-2007, 03:03 PM
Most of them don't even have passports!

Indeed. And as far as the number-fetish has taken hold in this thread, it's actually about 79% that does NOT own a passport. That just according to this somewhat dubious (http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003/01/31/how_many_america.php) report... Just makes you laugh until you cry.

Iain
10-12-2007, 03:08 PM
If you'd leave your little bastion of 'freedom' for a while you might get the notion that not only is America not very free in any sense, its behavior outside its border is detrimental to everyone. Freedom... ha. Freedom. Most Americans have no notion of what it even means.


I think Glendalough touched on this. The reputation of the US is in tatters and the only people who can't see that or are too ignorant to think it matters are US citizens. Not all of them of course, but enough to continue the damage.

The attitude of "we'll do what we want and to hell with anyone else" is affecting the whole world and is only surpassed in political stupidity by the attitude that anyone outwith the US who 'steps out of line' should have a cap popped in their ***.

Exception
10-12-2007, 03:12 PM
I think Glendalough touched on this. The reputation of the US is in tatters and the only people who can't see that or are too ignorant to think it matters are US citizens. Not all of them of course, but enough to continue the damage.

The attitude of "we'll do what we want and to hell with anyone else" is affecting the whole world and is only surpassed in political stupidity by the attitude that anyone outwith the US who 'steps out of line' should have a cap popped in their ***.

There we go.
There once were some smart people in the US. There still are, but then they were running the country, rather than the selfish monkeys that are doing it now. In any case, one of those smart men called benjamin Franklin said :"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

There's a hell of a lot of wisdom in that one sentence.
Virtue? Quoi?

Jim_C
10-12-2007, 03:47 PM
Indeed. And as far as the number-fetish has taken hold in this thread, it's actually about 79% that does NOT own a passport. .


And.....?

What does not having a passport prove?

Or more importantly, what is HAVING one suppose to prove?

Of course European citizens or other from parts of the world where inter-national travel is not just a pleasure but a neccessity, are going to have a higher passport carrying percentage.

We live in a huge *** country with a lot of geography to see, so you can stay in the USA and still do a lot of visual sight seeing and traveling. Plus, getting across the pond in either direction is not cheap.

As for the North and South of us, well, we are afraid of Mexicans and what is there to see in Canada anyway?


No where did I put my Big Mac?

card carrying traveler,
Jim ;)

Iain
10-12-2007, 03:53 PM
Or more importantly, what is HAVING one suppose to prove?

Of course European citizens or other from parts of the world where inter-national travel is not just a pleasure but a neccessity, are going to have a higher passport carrying percentage.


I don't need a passport (not sure what you mean by that) but I would never be without it.
America is big but the world is so much bigger, and not just in land mass.

I love travelling. I've still to see a lot of my own country but the diversity of cultures is really what travel is about. Scenery is eye candy-memorable people stay with you forever.

zapper1998
10-12-2007, 03:59 PM
On the History Channel they have had some really good shows on Global Warming.
And on the the Discovery Channel also had some really good Info on Global Warming..and the effects it will have..

yeppers...

Exception
10-12-2007, 04:51 PM
Of course European citizens or other from parts of the world where inter-national travel is not just a pleasure but a neccessity, are going to have a higher passport carrying percentage.


Um.
You don't need a passport to travel around most european countries as a european. There's also a euro-ID card which will get you there, and with just a drivers licence you can just trot over to anywhere... There's no borders anymore :)

And I'd be afraid of canada. Tthey have flying hockey pucks!

Andyjaggy
10-12-2007, 04:52 PM
I would love to travel to Europe. If it were as cheap and easy as say me driving to Cali or Montana then I am sure I would do it all the time.

spec24
10-12-2007, 04:56 PM
apparently a world in which one only selectively replies to parts of a conversation that happen to be convenient for you.
I don't see how one could possibly have a civil conversation like this.



I know exactly what it is.
I pasted this link in but that went wrong:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp
That one has total financial spending. 41%.



No it isn't. I looked at the total and the discretionary budget, and a comparison with the spending of other countries. But you lightfootedly stepped over that. I call that hypocrisy.
In any case, who are you to say that the rest of the world needs to learn your country's convoluted tax system that's so un-insightful it's hard to have even the remotest conversation about this. Because, YOU could make the point that veteran hospitals and a lot of other health and social services are performed by the military, making it a wholly difficult drab to navigate. And that is done on purpose, mind you. The comparative numbers with other countries do not lie, nor do the 41% 2005 total spending, and more than 60% discretionary spending. You vall the discretionary spending irrelevant? That's completely ridiculous. Above anything else it shows the political climate and intent.



How condescending. You've obviously never met a proper artist.



Well if you even bothered to read that document, which obviously you didn't, you would see that it's a converted and normalized for emission standards, which IS an emission standard, the most useful there is. What kind of usefulness does quantitative emission standards have when you just use more fuel instead?! That's like using a liter of fuel to reduce the emission of another liter of fuel.
But because you're obviously not inclined to actually read any documents I reference, I attached the g/CO2 graph here, that was just a fewpages further into the document. Shows exactly the same horrible US emission standard reflected. Do you have enough proof now?

You call me temperamental?
Yes, I am. That is because rude and antisocial behavior upsets me. In the words of my (American) professor of engineering: "Americans are complete social klutzes", and I'd like to add that that is only part of the problem of why the whole world is calling America arrogant, ignorant and egoistic. Your way of arguing, conveniently ignoring certain parts while capitalizing on others, sly and 'funny' remarks and uncivil behavior causes people to be temperamental.

It doesn't help that you're defending a way of life which is parasitical to others. If you'd leave your little bastion of 'freedom' for a while you might get the notion that not only is America not very free in any sense, its behavior outside its border is detrimental to everyone. Freedom... ha. Freedom. Most Americans have no notion of what it even means.

I'm not inclined to carry this conversation any further. It's no use discussing with someone who doesn't want to follow the most basic rules of discussion.

You're right - in the couple minutes I had to read the article I wasn't able to read the entire thing. You also apparently can't read what I wrote but you are very good at putting words in my mouth.
Are you now also mandating "rules of discussion" for everyone? You may want to reread some of your own posts in referring to rude and anti-social behavior. Reading your posts, that's all there is. You have laughed at people, told them to "go study science for a while", used foul language such as "bull***t"", told everyone they were ignorant, been condescending like saying "way to go" and "don't you understand that?"; I could go on quoting but I'm not sure I'm allowed that many words in the post. I was a bit flippant with Sande but then his/her statement was a bit flippant as well, I apologized for that action to him/her. I have nothing to apologize to you about as I have said nothing I feel bad about saying to someone who's been a blowhard throughout this entire post. I'm not exaclty sure what uncivil behavior of mine you're talking about. You must think anyone who disagrees with you is being uncivil. My comment about artists I find to be quite correct as most think with their hearts and not their heads. There was nothing condescneding in my statement, I meant just what it said - your "artwork" link - in which a picture was made showing discretionary spending. If you took that as demeaning the artwork I apologize as it was not meant to do so. I thought posting a link from a website called DEVIANTart as a "reference" laughable. The fact that that was your backing of your original point (that that's where most of our tax money goes) just proves the point. Then you posted your new reference - the actual white house statement - which again you only mentioned the discretionary spending. You seemed to refuse to acknowledge that if you include mandatory spending then it shows a different picture.
I only reply to that which is relevant and not irrelevant. I have NO idea what the heck what the rest of the world spends on military has anything to do with anything other than the fact that I'd rather live in a well protected country than one that is being protected by the fact that the other country is spending money of defense. Spend money on defense! That's one of the only things it should be spent on. I'm really not sure what you graph is telling anyone about US military spending. It's gone up since 1998. I would imagine so, we are in a war ("conflict" for all those sticklers out there). Any way, the point was that we spend more on social programs than the war. That was all.
I never said the rest of the world needs to learn our tax system - I could care less what they know about it.
I also didn't call discretionary spending irrelevant, it is quite relevant, but it is only half the picture. Talk about political climate and intent! Holy cow - your original post screamed anti-war liberal. I have no intent. It was just a disagreement with your premise.
The US is going to use more fuel than a lot of people for a long time, and China will surpass us. The paper you linked to is a study of a comparison of MPG to GHG emissions and it is 30 pages of "someone's" figures. It's not something you can glance at and get the whole picture. It is possible that what this document says is true. I will have to rethink it. I notice that the article does not go past the year 2002. I know China did not implement any emission standards until 2000, long after the US had them. Will ahve to research others.
My apologies to everyone else reading this thread, as this has obviously been dragged out far too long. And Exception.....good luck.

Jim_C
10-12-2007, 05:05 PM
Um.
You don't need a passport to travel around most european countries as a european. There's also a euro-ID card which will get you there, and with just a drivers licence you can just trot over to anywhere... There's no borders anymore :)


C'mon now... that was a perfectly good theory till you blew holes in it.....

See how much us Amuricuns know about travel abroad....
:)

Exception
10-12-2007, 05:17 PM
C'mon now... that was a perfectly good theory till you blew holes in it.....

Well.. it was funny :)

Exception
10-12-2007, 05:20 PM
Holy cow - your original post screamed anti-war liberal.

Ah we got to the heart of the matter. Pushing people into political camps.
Well, kind sir, your American political framework has no meaning outside of your borders. It makes absolutely no sense calling me an anti-war liberal, as there exists no such thing outside of the US. Please, continue your internal debate while overlaying everything with a thick bi-party political sauce. You might find out that you will never get anywhere.

I really don't feel like further responding to conversations of this nature.

jin choung
10-13-2007, 01:29 AM
people are dumb mother fers... and i mean that in the most sincerest, heartfelt manner.

that's why we can't do "preventive medicine" and instead wait until things become disease state.

we can't act unless it's an emergency.

evolutionary psychology - we're programmed to act on novel and extreme threats.... we're unaccustomed to modern life where death doesn't knock at every minute.

so even though it's highly unlikely that you'll be killed in a terrorist attack, you still worry about that as you eat a twinkie, a donut and slurp your coffee while text messaging, smoking... on your drive to work. even though most of the activities just described is far far more likely to kill you.

won't be any different with the environment.

no one will believe it until it kills them or someone close to them. meh. so be it. it's our nature.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

also, we should NEVER frame environmentalism as ALTRUISTIC.

it is ESSENTIALLY SELFISH.

the earth will recover.

the earth thrives after a cataclysmic event measured in equivalent numbers of thermonuclear weapons wiped out the dinosaurs.

the EARTH WILL BE FINE.

the only thing we should worry about is whether we end up purging ourselves off of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

conservation has to do with preserving species already on the earth. concern with whether they go extinct.

but even with this, life, and the earth will survive. even if current animals and us included get annihilated. after all, we wouldn't be here unless the dinosaurs were purged.

the earth will be fine.

the question is will we be?

i think it is a huuuuuuuuge mistake in framing environmentalism as altruistic. bill smith may not care about polar bears or whales or the rain forest or the earth for that matter.

it should always be framed as self interest issue.

basic salesmanship - what's in it for me?

jin

jin choung
10-13-2007, 01:35 AM
oh... i had this thought a while back:

y'know what would be a quick fix to global warming?

NUCLEAR WINTER!

it's obvious! and we don't have to go nuclear. there are conventional weapons now that are more powerful than hiroshima now....

we can just blast the heck out of some unused piece of realestate, send that land into the stratosphere and hey, we're coooooool baby.

then we can have our own climate control!

when it warms up, blast more earth. if it gets too cold, let's burn some more stuff.

can't you see? it's win win!

then nothing can stop us! NOTHING!!! muahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha!

sincerely,

jin

*Pete*
10-13-2007, 07:35 AM
It makes absolutely no sense calling me an anti-war liberal

*taps exception on the shoulder and whispers discreetly* -its supposed to be an insult.


actually it fits pretty well as an insult in a nation, whose military spending is larger than the rest of the world combined :D


as for freedom in america....its not a bit more free than any european nation, for example...sure, they pay less for the gasoline, are able to wear guns, but they arent allowed to be naked on a beach, walk in private owned forests without the risk of getting shot as trespassers..for example.

some freedoms you have, some you do not have...all in all, i would believe that we are more "free" here in europe..besides walking around the streets armed with guns, we can do all that the americans can do.


and to get back into the global warming topic...the fact that america (and china) doesnt want to agree on the kyoto protocol, while the rest of the world is willing to follow it, has only to do with money, and not alternative scientific results.

to be honest, this thread made me deeply disapointed in the average joe in USA..i always thought that it was the goverment who was the problem, that it was Bush and his administration who was shortsighted..after all, clinton was more enviromentally friendly than Bush is.

but this thread shows that its not a political problem, its americans themselfs who actually are disagreeing with anything that is good for the enviroment if it is going to cost money.

its selfish..

i remember the chernobyl nuclear plant disaster....days after it happened, and the world didnt even know about it yet, northern europe noticed huge changes in the radiation levels.

it took a further few days before we knew why...an nuclear plant in Ukraine blew up and caused the radiation here.

it was expensive to deal with, a lot of animals had to be killed and some types of food was impossible to eat for years....all becouse of the radiation.

pollution is very similiar, we are trying hard to decrease pollution here, in our respective nations...we do our best, and USA doesnt give a ****..american pollution (25% of world total) makes our efforts futile.

all the while when you are driving your big fat suv's and enjoying yourself, you are destroying the clima for all of us...id rather see you americans drive drunk, but with smaller and more ecologically friendly cars...atleast all the problems (caused by drunk driving) would be yours alone, and not shared by the rest of the world.

prospector
10-13-2007, 07:46 AM
american pollution (25% of world total) makes our efforts futile.


Not entirely true

We do 25%...ok I'll cede that and see nothing wrong with it.
So that leaves 75% for the rest.

so if you all cut to 0% we'd cut pollution (manmade) by 75% and your efforts would NOT be futile :D

Global pollution would be cut by 75% (manmade) which is what all the greenies want.


we do our best, and USA doesnt give a ****..
So lead by example...go to 0%

prospector
10-13-2007, 07:55 AM
YEA!!!! Here's an idea..
Instead of the KYOTO treaty, we'll have the CYBER treaty.
everyone must cut pollution by whatever % is needed to match the US.
so US is 50% and rest of world is 50%.

Now that we have a level playing field...for every 1% the world cuts, we will match it.

can't go wrong with that.

Lightwolf
10-13-2007, 08:03 AM
---
everyone must cut pollution by whatever % is needed to match the US.
so US is 50% and rest of world is 50%.

Sure, per capita. Now start already, will you?

Cheers,
Mike

prospector
10-13-2007, 08:19 AM
Only total pollution numbers count. actual tonnage of particulates.

Lightwolf
10-13-2007, 08:29 AM
Only total pollution numbers count. actual tonnage of particulates.
Erm, no, not really. Why should the rest of the world suffer because some people think they are better than others?

Cheers,
Mike

prospector
10-13-2007, 08:30 AM
we're not better...you (not you personally, world in general) are polluting 3X more than us...using above 25% number as fact

IMI
10-13-2007, 08:34 AM
Even if all of North and South America, Africa, Europe, Japan, Russia and the Mideast suddenly went "Green", does anybody believe China would be up for the idea?

Lightwolf
10-13-2007, 08:41 AM
we're not better...you (not you personally, world in general) are polluting 3X more than us...using above 25% number as fact
Ah, now I get it, you're the clown to cheer us up and make the topic more humorous.
I'm afraid it didn't work, leave that to the brits, they've got more experience in being funny ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
10-13-2007, 08:44 AM
Even if all of North and South America, Africa, Europe, Japan, Russia and the Mideast suddenly went "Green", does anybody believe China would be up for the idea?
Hm, do you think they'll stop producing lead poisened products becuase of pressure from abroad?
There's plenty of mechanism to more or less force them to make that move, but that requires some examples to go by. (Just as there are mechanisms to encourage citizens).

Cheers,
Mike

*Pete*
10-13-2007, 08:50 AM
we're not better...you (not you personally, world in general) are polluting 3X more than us...using above 25% number as fact


oh no, you ARE better than the rest of us..managing to reach 25% of total pollution with a population that is around 5% of world total population.

i think EU pollutes about 18%, which is not good at all either..with about the same (a little higher) percentage of world population.

together we, USA and EU pollute nearly half of world total, with about 10% of the worlds population.

this means that there is some poor nation in africa that manages to pollute only half a percent..HAHA on them poor bastards!

no competition towards us :D :thumbsup:

oh..hey..lets see, if everyone in the world would pollute the same much as americans..it would be *hits the calculator button*...ummm....around 500% increase in yearly pollution.

then all of us would be winners!:thumbsup:

IMI
10-13-2007, 09:01 AM
Hm, do you think they'll stop producing lead poisened products becuase of pressure from abroad?
There's plenty of mechanism to more or less force them to make that move, but that requires some examples to go by. (Just as there are mechanisms to encourage citizens).

Cheers,
Mike

I think they'll pretty much have to or else risk losing their toy industry in the US at least.
But I don't know how willing they'd be to curtail their industrial development just yet in order to make it all cleaner.

Exception
10-13-2007, 09:03 AM
Even if all of North and South America, Africa, Europe, Japan, Russia and the Mideast suddenly went "Green", does anybody believe China would be up for the idea?

After just recently visiting china, and seeing a lot of things wrong there, there are also a lot of things that are actually going remarkably well in china. For instance, they have adopted emission laws that are far stricter than that of most countries, they have cleaned up their rivers, they have almost all public transportation running on either LPG or biofuel, and are being augmented by electrical. They invest heavily in nuclear power, and are taking major steps to curtail future energy use, for instance, ALL social housing needs to be sustainable and there are very strict regulations on sustainability for the rest of the building industry in progress now. As far as this goes, China is doing far more than the US ever did. From a building industry perspective, they're doing about the same as Britain, which is amazing.

Also, in most parts of China it makes no sense buying a car because public transportation is so good. It's amazing! the entire shanghai subway system, with over 6 long, well planned and effective lines, has been built in merely 7 years. No Shanghaiian I met, all people ranging from 20 to 40, urban professionals, owned a car. None. It's completely unnecessary, expensive and they DO realize it's polluting.

Also, China will never become a USA. There's this constant talk of China just spurring ahead in pollution because suddenly everyone will want a car, everyone will want to have the exact same thing as the western world. that is simply not true. Although most Chinese are already capable and have the funds to do this, Chinese culture is excessively frugal and social in nature, rather than materialistic. They invest, save and re-use as a cultural notion. you can change technology fast, you can change an economy fast, but not a culture.
It's a pretty amazing place. I wouldn't be surprised if they outpace all other countries in environmental standards. They have completely understood that saving the environment is saving them major economic spendings in the future, and by being more efficient they have huge cuts in their expenditures. A few years ago, when a flood was threatening an entire region, the government put a value in excess of $10.000 on every tree in the region, preventing them from being cut down. This, after realizing that trees prevent land slides by securing soil, help evaporate tonnes of water, sink pollutants, filter particulates released by fires, and so on. They realized trees were performing necessary functions for them, and reacted upon it instantly. This is in complete contrast to the US, where, if one makes a law preventing the cutting down of trees, is immediately confronted with all kinds of ridiculous lobbies claiming 'trees have no right', and 'where will this lead to', and 'you hate freedom', and 'you're costing the taxpayer money, and more of such completely nonsensical drivel.

IMI
10-13-2007, 09:10 AM
Thank you for clarifying that. Could be I'm a victim of Western propaganda regarding China and their ways. ;)

prospector
10-13-2007, 09:12 AM
population makes no difference.
Only total particulate numbers. The earth cares not where it comes from, only that it's there.
So we have to go by total particulate numbers.

Lightwolf
10-13-2007, 09:14 AM
population makes no difference.
Only total particulate numbers. The earth cares not where it comes from, only that it's there.
So we have to go by total particulate numbers.
Well, in that case it is much easier to get the few of you in the US to change your evil ways than many, many more in other parts of the world.
The RoI is much better. Less people to convince for a relatively big return.

Cheers,
Mike

prospector
10-13-2007, 09:51 AM
AHHhh
now I see how it is.

Even tho the rest of the world pollutes 3 times more than us...it is we who have to cut pollution.
Thereby letting all of you kill the planet even more.

yes yes...I see

Exception
10-13-2007, 10:01 AM
AHHhh
now I see how it is.


What would keep Canada and Russia, which are larger than the US, from saying the same?
What would keep India and China, which have more people that the US, from saying the same?

The US is not the largest, not the most populous. What allows you to sit still while everyone else is gearing up? The fact that you pollute the most per capita, or per square mile of land mass? The fact that you have one of the highest GDP's which would easily allow a large change for small or no effect to the economy? The fact that you supply thrid world countries with polluting technologies, and force them to act in your image?

The United States of Colonization should not be forgotten.

With current technology there is only so much you can do while safeguarding a basic human living pattern. Everything in excess of this can be cut. In this regard, there is far more that is both easy to cut and feasible to do so in the country that pollutes the most per capita. And that is the US. Most of the other countries are already doing it.

hrgiger
10-13-2007, 10:16 AM
I think most of the worlds problems, including Global Warming would be solved quickly if we could just cut our population in half.

Now, where to put them....

Lightwolf
10-13-2007, 10:28 AM
I think most of the worlds problems, including Global Warming would be solved quickly if we could just cut our population in half.

Good point, that would leave the US with 12.5% of the global pollution, half as bad.
Or did I miss something? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Iain
10-13-2007, 12:51 PM
(not you personally, world in general) are polluting 3X more than us...using above 25% number as fact

That's brilliant! The US is, of course, a seperate entity from the rest of the world and should be given special dispensation as such.

Madness gone mad.

sammael
10-13-2007, 03:48 PM
That's brilliant! The US is, of course, a seperate entity from the rest of the world and should be given special dispensation as such.

Madness gone mad.

Yes its funny that, although im sure they'll sucessfully cut the world population in half by the year 2020 the rate they're going and only the useless poorer Americans will suffer... sorry, sorry im kinda joking...

hrgiger
10-13-2007, 04:02 PM
Good point, that would leave the US with 12.5% of the global pollution, half as bad.
Or did I miss something? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

No, of course I meant to remove them proportionally. Silly.

prospector
10-13-2007, 04:10 PM
OK OK
Being the extremely nice AND generous person that I am, and am willing to compromise with anyone, I have talked it over with my anti-pollution cabinet members and have come up with a compromise that should work all around for a win-win situation.

part 1

We will upon signing of the cyber treaty of 2007, hereby and forthwith cease all farming of land NOT used to produce food directly for U.S. citizens.
This will result in less pollution from farm equipment, trucks to deliver said food products, factorys to process said food, and ships to ship said food.
It will also create cleaner water as no toxic pesticides from overgrowth of food products will run off into creeks and rivers, and will also allow said farms to grow into naturally occuring forests and fields.

This will also better fund local towns from increase income derived from hunting and fishing licences.

A win for the earth and a win for me to hunt and fish more.

Altho this will also result in some countries to go into mass starvation...a wise scholar once said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

So tho countries may die, the earth as a whole will continue.


Part 2
Because we do not want to pollute other countries, we will hereby and forthwith bring all buisnesses and military back to the US. This will in effect lower pollution made by US entities overseas to a per country basis.
Again a win for the planet.

Altho this will also result in some countrys economies to collapse with the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars, we are sure those countries governments could explain and take care of the local cicizens.

Part 3
we will hereby and forthwith stop all international flights and shipping so as to reduce even furthur the pollution beseiged on the planet.

Again..another win for the planet.

Altho this will result in no forign aid to leave the shores of the US, and Red Cross would have to be terminated and thereby reducing even furthur the pollution released from their vehichles.

Also this will result in mass death from natural desasters that we can no longer bring aid to victems. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Part 4
And we shall not pollute the planet with war machines outside the borders of the US.

Another win for mother Earth.

Also this may result in countries like Russia taking over all of Europe and the Mid East, and China taking the rest, we will hold our smoke from the air by not sending ships and planes, and resist the temptation free you all again.

We, the hereby undersigned agree to this treaty;

Sign here;




Now, everyone print this treaty out, sign it and send to the United Nations headguy.

sammael
10-13-2007, 04:23 PM
Spoken like a true patriot.

Exception
10-14-2007, 08:29 AM
OK OK
Being the extremely nice AND generous person that I am, and am willing to compromise with anyone, I have talked it over with my anti-pollution cabinet members and have come up with a compromise that should work all around for a win-win situation.

Sweet!


part 1

We will upon signing of the cyber treaty of 2007, hereby and forthwith cease all farming of land NOT used to produce food directly for U.S. citizens.
...
So tho countries may die, the earth as a whole will continue.

Nice! I like this one. By the total collapse of the already severely weak US economy, and the rapid devaluation of the dollar that will ensue, the population of the Us terrirtories is surely to be decimated by riots or even civil war between the factions that already have high tension.



Part 2
Because we do not want to pollute other countries, we will hereby and forthwith bring all buisnesses and military back to the US. This will in effect lower pollution made by US entities overseas to a per country basis.
Again a win for the planet.

Altho this will also result in some countrys economies to collapse with the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars, we are sure those countries governments could explain and take care of the local cicizens.

Also sweet!
Because... what hundreds of millions of dollars?
You mean, no longer destroy their houses, block their infrastructure, handicap their industries and suppress, dominate and dictate their populace? I think they'll be doing just fine, because, they can't get any worse than they are currently.
And yeah, Cuba is doing fine.


Part 3
we will hereby and forthwith stop all international flights and shipping so as to reduce even furthur the pollution beseiged on the planet.
...
Altho this will result in no forign aid to leave the shores of the US, and Red Cross would have to be terminated and thereby reducing even furthur the pollution released from their vehichles.

Also great idea!
Because the red cross isn't an american institution, so they will simply continue to exist, and the measely foreign aid that the US gives inc omparison to other countries will be easy to compensate. Meanwhile, the horrible US airline companies that seem to have a policy to hire the rudest air hostesses in the world, and purposefully obtain 1962 style headphones will be wiped out and remove their silly exclusivity laws that prevents them from going bankrupt immediately, and we can finally get some good service in the US.


Also this will result in mass death from natural desasters that we can no longer bring aid to victems. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I agree! Because the US aid to the katrina victims was so exemplary, even Bush waved from his helicopter to the drowning victims that were not saved by the military because they were too busy polishing their guns in some remote part of the world. If they would return home, they could perhaps help out rebuild a city that has been in ruins ever since.


Part 4
And we shall not pollute the planet with war machines outside the borders of the US.

Another win for mother Earth.

Even sweeter!


Also this may result in countries like Russia taking over all of Europe and the Mid East, and China taking the rest, we will hold our smoke from the air by not sending ships and planes, and resist the temptation free you all again.

No country other than the US has shown any hostile intent so far, and hey, the US actually did invade other countries... and wow... wouldn't it be sweet if the military pressure from the US would fall away, and leave the world alone, and where it's absolutely necessary I'm sure germany, france and the UK have enough little boats floating around to do their thing.

Oh but uhm, some countries might be a little upset about the US being the bully in their backyard so they might come to spank the parents for their trailer-trash style of educating their children (read: populace).


We, the hereby undersigned agree to this treaty;

Sign here;

Now, everyone print this treaty out, sign it and send to the United Nations headguy.

Signed, sealed and sent!
Glad we could come to an agreement here.

Iain
10-14-2007, 08:56 AM
Altho this will also result in some countries to go into mass starvation...a wise scholar once said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

So tho countries may die, the earth as a whole will continue.


Altho this will also result in some countrys economies to collapse with the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars, we are sure those countries governments could explain and take care of the local cicizens.



Altho this will result in no forign aid to leave the shores of the US, and Red Cross would have to be terminated and thereby reducing even furthur the pollution released from their vehichles.

Also this will result in mass death from natural desasters that we can no longer bring aid to victems. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.


Also this may result in countries like Russia taking over all of Europe and the Mid East, and China taking the rest, we will hold our smoke from the air by not sending ships and planes, and resist the temptation free you all again.



God bless amurricah.
Where would we be without you guys?

Genius post.

Glendalough
10-14-2007, 09:51 AM
Wow Prospector, you've really blown your cover now!

Wouldn't start talking of freedom, we may need someone to bail out the US! It could get all rather embarrassing. Also Russia is inherently the most powerful country in the world by a long stretch, with almost TWICE the area of anywhere else and also a population of only 140 million (same as US circa 1940) with all those natural resources. If they ever sort out their social problems, and meanwhile ours are just getting worse.

But think this is really pointing to something like "it's all about the economy s-". It appears that the economy is BAD.

All the time we were worshipping "growth" and admiring huge piles of money we should have been going the other way. The world is getting too small and we need to shrink production and activity. Really Carter, the only one to reduce oil consumption (by almost a third) was way ahead of his time.

The 55 mph is the key to salvation for many many reasons. Firstly it immediately removes the macho element of high HP from cars and gives the big 3 (stooges) incentive to make something wonderful in terms of economy and value for money. Secondly etc etc, it wouldn't take long to get a big list. Also if the trucks were taken off the road, we wouldn't have to build anymore highways for years, for ever maybe...

But the really 'best' reason, is that it makes the country bigger, and likewise if we and others could stop dragging all this rubbish (low quality consumer goods) all over the globe, this would be a great help. Most people would prefer homegrown stuff even if it costs more.

Perhaps growth has become synonymous with fungus.

IMI
10-14-2007, 10:47 AM
The 55 mph is the key to salvation for many many reasons. Firstly it immediately removes the macho element of high HP from cars and gives the big 3 (stooges) incentive to make something wonderful in terms of economy and value for money. Secondly etc etc, it wouldn't take long to get a big list. Also if the trucks were taken off the road, we wouldn't have to build anymore highways for years, for ever maybe...

How do we move goods around with no trucks? Trains?
And 55 mph as a limit just sucks. best thing they did was to remove that. I drive 80 mph pretty much all the way to work every day, and I sure don't want to give that up.

Creating laws limiting rights and conveniences is the way to deal with small children and criminals.
An intelligent, advanced society invents ways to maintain their standard of living with technological breakthroughs, new ideas, and persistence.
Alternative fuels.

Glendalough
10-14-2007, 10:57 AM
...
An intelligent, advanced society invents ways to maintain their standard of living with technological breakthroughs, new ideas, and persistence.
Alternative fuels.

But where are they (when we need them)?

Except for health care, the standard of living has been going down since the 1980's even for the rich.

cresshead
10-14-2007, 11:01 AM
the whole deal is a load of ruibbish...all the green stuff is to make you PAY more in taxes....the channel 4 program pretty much de bunked the whole deal as the data used to underpin 'global warming' due to human's is stupid...it has FAR more to do with the SUN and the 11 year solar cycle than us doing anything....

i do not subscribe to global warming being down to us at all...maybe a tiny bit but the SUN is the big deal here not man's impact.

IMI
10-14-2007, 11:04 AM
Beats me. I'm an artist, not a physicist. ;) They're working on it.
One thing I think *should* be made illegal is the whole concept of lobbying...
Since Senators and Representatives are children and criminals, I don't see a contradiction there. ;)

Get the Status Quo people out of our government and get the money to the researchers, and see what they can come up with when they're properly funded.

prospector
10-14-2007, 11:10 AM
Exception, you are drinking too much coolade;

Top 20 economies of world (World Bank Numbers)
1 United States 13,201,819
2 Japan 4,340,133
3 Germany 2,906,681
4 China 2,668,071
5 United Kingdom 2,345,015
6 France 2,230,721a
7 Italy 1,844,749
8 Canada 1,251,463
9 Spain 1,223,988
10 Brazil 1,067,962
11 Russian Federation 986,940
12 India 906,268
13 South Korea 888,024
14 Mexico 839,182
15 Australia 768,178
16 Netherlands 657,590
17 Turkey 402,710
18 Belgium 392,001
19 Sweden 384,927
20 Switzerland 379,758

3+ X higher than closest runnerup...yea..bad economy here :D


Us terrirtories is surely to be decimated by riots or even civil war between the factions that already have high tension
Sometimes some have to be sacrificed (good of the many thingy) (Protect the planet thingy)


what hundreds of millions of dollars?
My bad...should have been Billions...417.4 Billion according to DoD numbers
also we hire 1,332,300 local citizens to work on bases, again DoD numbers.
So 1million + people would be out of work, but hey, less pollution driving to bases is a good planetary thing. Save that planet.....
Also a win for my wallet as less money is stolen from me to pay for it. :)


Because the red cross isn't an american institution, so they will simply continue to exist, and the measely foreign aid that the US gives inc omparison to other countries will be easy to compensate.

True, it's not an exclusively American institution, but a search of worldwide disasters shows the US gives at a minimum 3 X more than it's next largest contributor which is Japan. Which shows that if that's all they give now, they can hardly make up the difference.
And with 16% donations to world Bank being lost, the rest of world could never possably make up difference.


Because the US aid to the katrina victims was so exemplary,
Conviently forgetting that the Mayor and Governor have the final say in what's done? Due to State law, the US government cannot be called in untill formally requested by Governer, which wasn't done..Sorry that holds no water.


No country other than the US has shown any hostile intent so far
Conviently forgetting WWI and WWII ? Forgetting the Russian takeover of half of Europe? Forgetting the expansion of Japan?


I'm sure germany, france and the UK have enough little boats floating around to do their thing.
Didn't Germany start both of them? And didn't France and the rest of Europe just surrender in both of them?
Now the UK is different, and altho they may put up a fight, even they can't hold back Russia for long. But I do commend them on their valour.

Yes yes, the most hated country on the face of the planet does so much for so little.

prospector
10-14-2007, 11:16 AM
How do we move goods around with no trucks? Trains?
YES !!!
we need to build train depos behind every WalMart, Home Depot, BurgerKing, McDonalds, Safeway......well every buisness in the country.

TRAINS EVERYWHERE I SAY !!!!!!

Stop trucks.......a verry silly idea.

cresshead
10-14-2007, 11:27 AM
naah we need jet packs!
deliveries via jetpack operatives from tesco/morrisons straight to our door!

prospector
10-14-2007, 11:28 AM
I take that train thingy back.

We could easily stick 40,000 pounds of strawberries in the trunk of one of those 3 cyl hybrid cars.
Yea that's doable :D :D

Sande
10-14-2007, 11:29 AM
Heh, Prospector, do you actually believe all that are or you just trying to provoke people? Your views of the world could be easily used as some anti-US-propaganda material - I hope for your country's sake, that Al Jazeera isn't monitoring these forums... :D

prospector
10-14-2007, 11:37 AM
Just trying to come up with ways to cut pollution done by the US and save the planet.
Just doing my part. :D :D

Sande
10-14-2007, 11:43 AM
Heh, ok then - keep up the good work! :thumbsup:

prospector
10-14-2007, 11:55 AM
Absolutly will :thumbsup:

But as for believing?

You betcha

scales must equal out.

On one side of scale we have all the help around the world the US does...and other side of scale is all people who hate us.

remove all the help and all the people will love us.


scales are then equal. easy as 1 2 3 ...A B C

IMI
10-14-2007, 11:55 AM
YES !!!
we need to build train depos behind every WalMart, Home Depot, BurgerKing, McDonalds, Safeway......well every buisness in the country.

TRAINS EVERYWHERE I SAY !!!!!!

Stop trucks.......a verry silly idea.

If there's any form of transportation that I would be whole-heartedly for seeing go the way of the dodo, it's the train. Unless they can make them fly. ;)
Hell if I don't get stuck behind this looonnnggg line of cars nearly every day in Orlando, where these...these trains are constantly crossing 17-92. And nobody has had enough sense to build an overpass for them.
Trains- bad. Trucks- OK.
Convertible Mercedes' and BMW's filled with scantily-clad flirty college girls, much better. :D

Mike_RB
10-14-2007, 12:14 PM
and if you see evolution as a valid theory, which of the above givey a species a higher chance to adapt?

Not that this is really the point of this thread but this bugs me so much when I see it written this way. Evolution (fact) is proven (Mendel proved this in the 1800's). Things change over each generation due to hereditary information. Evolution (theory) about the mechanism of that change (natural selection) is generally also completely accepted by the science community. It's not just a valid theory, it makes predictions and is falsifyable, therefore it is a perfectly good theory.

Lightwolf
10-14-2007, 12:16 PM
The 55 mph is the key to salvation for many many reasons. Firstly it immediately removes the macho element of high HP from cars and gives the big 3 (stooges) incentive to make something wonderful in terms of economy and value for money.
Not really. I mean, we have no speed limits on stretches of the highways here, usually 120/130 km/h on all the others and still in average cars have a better mileage compared to the US.
Increase the prices for fuel - as easy as that.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
10-14-2007, 12:30 PM
Not that this is really the point of this thread but this bugs me so much when I see it written this way.
Yeah, but people still doubt it, and c'mon, you've got to lower your standards if some people assume we still live in the middle ages ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Sande
10-14-2007, 12:38 PM
Yeah, but people still doubt it, and c'mon, you've got to lower your standards if some people assume we still live in the middle ages ;)

Cheers,
Mike
I've even heard that there are some places in the world where there is also tought some other theory (it was Flying Spaghetti Monster or something similar) in public schools... ;)

Glendalough
10-14-2007, 12:57 PM
...

Top 20 economies of world (World Bank Numbers)
1 United States 13,201,819

...

Am only writing because curious where you think it will all go...

The Eu economy is now the biggest in the world. It just happened recently with the drop in the dollar.

Considering it has been around for only about ten years, and also during most of that time it was considered not doing that well (stagnant), this is not what was expected.

There is something seriously wrong in the american economy. The massaging and distortion of statistics and range of misinformation has led us, the people to believe otherwise. To put it briefly, America is laboring under a huge cloud of Stupid Ideals which aren't adding up in any way.

Driving around at 80 or 90 miles an hour is stressful and dangerous, especially when other cars are on the road. You have little chance if anything goes wrong. It's also very inefficient, small airplanes use less fuel when you get up to this speed, so you can imagine the wastage.

A lot of people need to do this, and it is a drop in standards from when we could travel shorter distances on empty roads at slower speeds.

Scantily-clad flirty college girls in bmw and mercs (as they say in Europe, not Ford mercurys) aren't very common anymore as college grants are a fraction of what they used to be. Also no interest free loans any more. I went back to college for a spell and was appalled at what the students had to put up with, how mean and stingy things had become and the students exploited etc,etc.

Some one better wake up and think of something or else it's going to be 3rd rate and not even 2nd rate.

prospector
10-14-2007, 01:12 PM
The Eu economy is now the biggest in the world.
Which proves my point. If you have to add the total output of like 40 countries (Europe) to just get past 1 (US), yet still 3X higher than the next closest even AFTER drop in dollar, that we are not really doing that bad.

But that's typical, everything the US does must be compared to like half the countries of the world to be even. :D :D

But it was in reply to exception who beleives that the US economy is in total collapse
which I might (*might*) beleive if it was compared to some country like maby Etheopa

Glendalough
10-14-2007, 01:25 PM
Not really. I mean, we have no speed limits on stretches of the highways here, usually 120/130 km/h on all the others and still in average cars have a better mileage compared to the US.
Increase the prices for fuel - as easy as that.

Cheers,
Mike

There's something about the speed around 55mph (95k). This, the highest optimal speed, as from here up more energy is used to overcome wind resistance than carry the weight of the car.

At least this was true in the 70's, maybe the cars nowadays are so squashed down and little head room and hard to get into (another drop in standards) that they can go higher. Saw a 1960's E type Jaguar the other day and couldn't believe how tall and spindly it looked.

prospector
10-14-2007, 01:31 PM
Evolution (fact) is proven (Mendel proved this in the 1800's).
It is??
I have seen nothing about the missing link??? Have they conclusivly plugged that major glaring hole???

Lightwolf
10-14-2007, 01:49 PM
Which proves my point. If you have to add the total output of like 40 countries (Europe) to just get past 1 (US), yet still 3X higher than the next closest even AFTER drop in dollar, that we are not really doing that bad.

But that's typical, everything the US does must be compared to like half the countries of the world to be even. :D :D

In that case, compare it to one of the member states that exports more goods than any other country in the world.
Germany, believe it or not (closely followed by China, but the haven't caught up yet).

Yee, it just depends on the numbers you pick ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Mike_RB
10-14-2007, 01:54 PM
It is??
I have seen nothing about the missing link??? Have they conclusivly plugged that major glaring hole???

Re-read my post. Hereditary transmission of information leads to different organisms, this is proven. Read up on Mendel's work. I'm sorry if extrapolating Darwin and Mendel's work to geological timescales hurts your ego.

Lightwolf
10-14-2007, 01:57 PM
There's something about the speed around 55mph (95k). This, the highest optimal speed, as from here up more energy is used to overcome wind resistance than carry the weight of the car.

At least this was true in the 70's, maybe the cars nowadays are so squashed down and little head room and hard to get into (another drop in standards) that they can go higher. Saw a 1960's E type Jaguar the other day and couldn't believe how tall and spindly it looked.
Aerodynamics have changes a lot in the past 30 years, so I'd presume it to be higher as well.

The car I drive does around 43-40 MPG (that's 5.5 to 6 litres per km) if I drive at an average of 130km/h on long distances - that's without me trying to save on fuel and a peak speed of 160km/h on certain stretches if traffic allows.
I can get it as hight as 52 (4.5 l/km) on specific trips. And this car is 6 years old and I can fit comfortably as well (I'm 1.88m).

I have to admit it helps not to be a car freak - I just wanted something to get me from A to B safely without paying a lot.

Cheers,
Mike

Iain
10-14-2007, 02:10 PM
I think prospector has a point about all the good but largely unrecognised work the US does for the world. Everyone knows America are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys, don't they?

"I think we should look at this from the military point of view. I mean, supposing the Russkies stashes away some big bomb, see. When they come out in a hundred years they could take over... In fact, they might even try an immediate sneak attack so they could take over our mineshaft space... I think it would be extremely naive of us, Mr. President, to imagine that these new developments are going to cause any change in Soviet expansionist policy. I mean, we must be... increasingly on the alert to prevent them from taking over other mineshaft space, in order to breed more prodigiously than we do, thus, knocking us out in superior numbers when we emerge! Mr. President, we must not allow... a mine shaft gap!"

- General Buck Turgidson

prospector
10-14-2007, 02:19 PM
Re-read my post.
I did.
But I don't remember see the actual bones from the missing link being found anywhere.
Also as you say, they are theories. Which are not really proven facts.
But I am not religious either so there would have to be some kind of proof that 1 day there was nothing and the next there was.

The missing link comes from space I think. Like we have humans trying to mate with animals now, so did the aliens back then.. :D

Sande
10-14-2007, 02:22 PM
I think prospector has a point about all the good but largely unrecognised work the US does for the world. Everyone knows America are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys, don't they?
Well, I'm having hard time believing that prospector is serious at all - or should be taken seriously for that matter. :)
That good guys/bad guys sounds like something that could have come out of Bush - world is a lot less black n' white nowadays...

Glendalough
10-14-2007, 02:36 PM
...
I have to admit it helps not to be a car freak - I just wanted something to get me from A to B safely without paying a lot.

Cheers,
Mike

The car that I drive at the moment, i'd rather not think about, though have had real cars in the past. At the moment driving is just so unenjoyable, that you have to get up at 4 in the morning and drive 200 miles across the country (small country) to find an open road.

On arrival at the open 'road' its usually so small that you can only go 50 or 60 but it sure beats the motorway, you can actually relax and look out the windows.

Have heard a lot of stories and legends about the Autobahns, but thought they were bringing in a speed limit?

The only answer i can see is getting rid of the trucks and making cars really small and light, cube shaped with electric sensors to prevent crashes. Really boring, yes. The roads are getting so congested all over the world that a modest even speed with no tailbacks, congestion, would be actually faster in most places anywhere near a city.


Prospector: There is no 'missing link', this is just a myth from years ago (the 50s?). The latest theories say the Neanderthal, us, and now a third sort of troll or dwarf species were all living concurrently about 15,000 years ago. Really sounds spooky, some people are suggesting that the Neanderthal's last stand in Europe was somewhere around Gibraltar. There's got to be a film coming soon.

akademus
10-14-2007, 03:42 PM
Which proves my point. If you have to add the total output of like 40 countries (Europe) to just get past 1 (US),

A little correction: U.S. is constitution of 48 states, plus D.C. plus Alaska plus Hawaii plus Caribbean and Pacific territories! That's a lot of outputs!

EU consists of 27 member states!

prospector
10-14-2007, 03:47 PM
Well, I'm having hard time believing that prospector is serious at all
About what?
the fact that we help everyone around the planet and get nothing but grief?
cuz all we see here is is riots and flag burning from all other countries. And don't say it's cuz of the war cuz this has been going on since the 60's.

Or the fact that we are the greatest economic force or military force or industrious force there is?

Or
the treaty of 2007?
If we did any or all the points me and my cabinet laid out, I would shed no tears. And if populations died or widespread famine became true or if any countries economies went belly up or aids totally decimated Africa and any other country, I still would shed no tears.....I'm tired of paying my taxes to everyone around the world and not even getting a thanks for it.

Or could it be about GW?
to be taken seriously about that I would have to beleive it. Which I don't.
Oh we may be getting warmer but it has nothing to do with mankind. Just a natural cycle of earth and or earth and sun. But I do try to come up with less pollution ideas. :thumbsup:

Lightwolf
10-14-2007, 03:55 PM
Have heard a lot of stories and legends about the Autobahns, but thought they were bringing in a speed limit?
They're discussing a general speed limit. But in fact there is a speed limit on most stretches anyhow and 130 km/h is the "recommended" speed.
On the other hand, public transport works quite well, especially when commuting - and is a lot less stressfull plus it gives you time to read the paper or whatever.


The latest theories say the Neanderthal, us, and now a third sort of troll or dwarf species were all living concurrently about 15,000 years ago. Really sounds spooky, some people are suggesting that the Neanderthal's last stand in Europe was somewhere around Gibraltar. There's got to be a film coming soon.
At least us and the Neanderthals, yup, I read something about that as well. There also some research on interbreeding with humans.

Cheers,
Mike

prospector
10-14-2007, 03:58 PM
:D
A little correction: U.S. is constitution of 48 states,
We count Alaska and Hawaii as states since '59
DC is just a town and the pacific territories produce little to nothing towards the GDP of the US.
And I apologize..27 countries to top the US.
but it still shows we are doing mighty fine in the economic world contrary to what exception said above.

Sande
10-14-2007, 04:24 PM
Prospector, Ok, if you really are serious - my apologies. Many of your claims have just been so far fetched, ignorant, arrogant and misinformed that I naturally assumed you are either provoking people or just being sarcastic. :)

prospector
10-14-2007, 04:36 PM
Many of your claims have just been so far fetched, ignorant, arrogant and misinformed
Wasn't making any 'claims', used UN numbers, used DoD numbers, used World Bank numbers, used various world news orginizations reports of disaster relief moneys. With the UN, World Bank, and some news orginazations that are known to be non-US friendly.
And used my wallet for what's missing.:)
And can't for the life of me remember any news report of anyone saying thanks. And I go back to the 50's.

Sande
10-14-2007, 05:36 PM
Are you watching Fox news? ;)

Ok, if you are referring to US economy, you seem to be making a conclusion that if US is the biggest economy, then everything is going well over there? There's more to it than GDP.

You seem to be upset about the amount of taxes and the amount of aid you give and you seem to think that your generosity is somehow overwhelming. For your information: US is not the only country giving aid and the rest of us around the world have to pay our taxes aswell. While the amount US gives is huge when looked at the pile of dollars, there's also more to that too...

USA’s aid, in terms of percentage of GNI (gross national income) is one of the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world. On top of that, over 90% (here is by the way one percentage where US actually leads) of that aid is tied - meaning that the aid can only be used for overpriced US goods and services. There is usually also strategic (geopolitical) and economic interests involved in your aid - want to guess why the aid was high during cold war or which bombed middle east nation now gets the most dollars (to spend on your own goods)...?

I'm pretty sure those lucky ones who recieve the aid are thankful, but I'm not that overwhelmed by your generosity personally. Sorry.

Mike_RB
10-14-2007, 05:55 PM
I did.
But I don't remember see the actual bones from the missing link being found anywhere.
Also as you say, they are theories. Which are not really proven facts.
But I am not religious either so there would have to be some kind of proof that 1 day there was nothing and the next there was.

The missing link comes from space I think. Like we have humans trying to mate with animals now, so did the aliens back then.. :D

They are theories in the scientific sense only, much like the theory of gravity. We can't prove how the matter that makes up the earth came together, maybe giant space bulldozers pushed it all together... but we can see how gravity works NOW and we have the circumstantial evidence of the earth being here and in a spheriod shape to help give us clues. So in lack of a better theory, with more evidence, we assume gravity pulled the matter together. So, if a better theory that had more molecular/fossil/biological/genetic support appeared, it would be used instead of evolution by natural selection. But unfortunately the only other theory really put forward has no evidence in support of it at all.

prospector
10-14-2007, 06:10 PM
USA’s aid, in terms of percentage of GNI (gross national income) is one of the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world.
And how much are we suppose to give?
We already outgive any other country, and most likely give more than the last 50 countries GDP on the World Banks list of countries GDP combined.


US is not the only country giving aid and the rest of us around the world have to pay our taxes aswell
I didn't or would never say that.


meaning that the aid can only be used for overpriced US goods and services.
Well, that you have to blame on unions. I don't like their high prices either. :thumbsup:

Sande
10-14-2007, 06:36 PM
And how much are we suppose to give?

I'm glad you asked. How about trying to reach even that 0.7% of GNI target, which was set by United Nations General Assembly Resolution in 1970 - your country was part of that resolution also.

Sadly most of the nations still lag behind that goal (which was meant to be reached in mid 70's), but there are also positive examples like Sweden which gives over 1% of GNI. Majority of industrialized countries are between 0.5% and 0.3% of GNI - while USA lags behind at pitiful 0.17%.

So you can take comfort knowing that while you may pay some aid to foreign countries in your taxes, others pay a lot more - and complain less... ;)

Stooch
10-14-2007, 07:05 PM
its funny i posted a video about it being a hoax months ago and it got locked for some reason. for no reason actually. why isnt this thread locked already?

i think that the people who run this site might be these global warming fanatics as well, and eager to stifle debate like this because they dont like to be wrong.

prospector
10-14-2007, 07:11 PM
United Nations General Assembly Resolution in 1970

See, that's what is wrong..You believe in the UN.
A pile of dollars is a pile of dollars. Whoevers pile is bigger is the one that pays the most, no matter how it's measured the US pile is bigger. :thumbsup:

Exception
10-14-2007, 07:20 PM
Exception, you are drinking too much coolade;

Top 20 economies of world (World Bank Numbers)
1 United States 13,201,819

just because it's BIg doesn't make it an economy that works well.
Seriously, this is 10 year old level debates.
When you borrow as much as the Us does and fuel the economy with borrowed money, yes you get a big economy, but not a good one.
Go to Union square in new york and read up the number that's displayed behind the glass facade on the east side. Try to give that number a name. It's your country's debt.


My bad...should have been Billions...417.4 Billion according to DoD numbers also we hire 1,332,300 local citizens to work on bases, again DoD numbers. So 1million + people would be out of work, but hey, less pollution driving to bases is a good planetary thing. Save that planet.....
Also a win for my wallet as less money is stolen from me to pay for it. :)

People that could easily find jobs in buildings that have not been destroyed or bombed or occupied, in an economy that would work normally and so on. It's not even remotely proportional to the damages that are done.


True, it's not an exclusively American institution, but a search of worldwide disasters shows the US gives at a minimum 3 X more than it's next largest contributor which is Japan. Which shows that if that's all they give now, they can hardly make up the difference.
And with 16% donations to world Bank being lost, the rest of world could never possably make up difference.

The world bank is a completely flawed institution that forces countries to privatize their national resources and infrastructure before it gives aid, thereby immediately allowing foreign investors to buy up those companies and ship the material out of them. Public services are never profitable if they need to work well, as not all benefits are factored in the standard revenue stream. The world bank is in a crisis. It's totally missed its mark. And again, it wouldn't be this way save for American extreme right wing influence that still thinks privatization is good for all (while it of course knows that it's only good for the elite).

In addition, how much of the red cross do you think is devoted to people being hurt by the American military? Ever think about that? The red cross will do just fine if the US just leaves.


Conviently forgetting that the Mayor and Governor have the final say in what's done? Due to State law, the US government cannot be called in untill formally requested by Governer, which wasn't done..Sorry that holds no water.

What on earth has that got to do with it? The Mayor and Governor are part of the US government are they not? Are are they private institutions too?
America should solve its own problems before telling others what to do. Only when it can serve as a positive example for others might one talk about a role model, and if it really were, it wouldn't.


Conviently forgetting WWI and WWII ? Forgetting the Russian takeover of half of Europe? Forgetting the expansion of Japan?

No, but there is NO way you can even remotely compare the world of 60 years ago with the world of now. The Russians taking over half of Europe? That's a good one. You mean, after they spent more money and people by far fighting the germans than America ever did? If it wasn't for the Russians, we'd all be speaking german, including you, so don;t even start about that sort of idiotic comparisons.



Didn't Germany start both of them? And didn't France and the rest of Europe just surrender in both of them?

Were you there? You want to feed the European souls that died fighting the Germans? Before you start throwing around insulting completely fallicious drivel, you might want to consider how many dead people you're actually insulting.
And I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Why don;t we talk about a little bit further ago, when your country was so uncivilized they spent years butchering eachother, right after butchering most of the indigenous population, and after WOI and WOII just continuing by invading a country across the planet for no apparent reason, and by totally failing in a long, disastrous horrible dehumanizing war that had no effect, and was fought because of one big lie invented by the US. Remember Vietnam?


Now the UK is different, and altho they may put up a fight, even they can't hold back Russia for long. But I do commend them on their valour.

Russia doesn't even exist anymore in the form that they were an issue 40 years ago. Your fear of Russia is only founded on ignorance and unwillingness to know any better. Why don't you fly over to Russia and check out that country yourself. Go live there a few months. You'd realize how wrong you are. How totally off the mark you are. The US is an ill-informed shell shocked old war Veteran that has locked itself in its outhouse and shoots everything that comes near, including the milkman.


Yes yes, the most hated country on the face of the planet does so much for so little.

I'm not saying the Us does little. I'm saying it does more harm than good. And I don't really care if you believe me or not. Most of the world thinks this at this moment. Which is a hell of a lot more people than you can ever imagine having on your doorstep when the excrement hits the rotary air displacer.

Stooch
10-14-2007, 07:32 PM
Russia doesn't even exist anymore in the form that they were an issue 40 years ago. Your fear of Russia is only founded on ignorance and unwillingness to know any better. Why don't you fly over to Russia and check out that country yourself. Go live there a few months. You'd realize how wrong you are. How totally off the mark you are. The US is an ill-informed shell shocked old war Veteran that has locked itself in its outhouse and shoots everything that comes near, including the milkman.

Thanks for that, i get tired from all the ignorance and fear people have of russia. alot of it is unfounded and completely off base. True there are bad apples in every orchard but arrogant ignorance seems to prevail. russian people have suffered greatly at the hands of their own leaders and its annoying to see others feel threatened by their improving standard of life. Id like to go back there someday and see the changes myself. it has been a long time.

russia has had pretty reasonable policies lately, policies that dont involve massing ballistic missles to next to other countries. bush really needs a kick in the *** for such antagonistic stunts. im surprised this isnt as much of a political issue in the current presidential debates.

RTSchramm
10-14-2007, 07:36 PM
Although no scientist disputes that global warming is occurring, the big argument is what is causing it. Gore's movie distorts the facts big time. For example, he refers to ice core examples that apparently show a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature rise, which is true when you compress CO2 and Temperature charts together. BUT when you compare the CO2 and temperate data uncompressed you will notice that the temperate of the earth increases first and then followed 900 years later with a rise in CO2 levels; just the opposite that Gore proposes. Last spring of 2007 a scientist had proven that the rise in the earth's temperature is due to how the Sun's solar winds interact with the comic rays that bombard the Earth every second. If anyone has any doubts about this then at least watch the following movie:

http://stage6.divx.com/user/superhans100/video/1253238/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

So why down we hear much about this? Money and politics are driving the CO2 theory behind global warming. I think Gore getting a Nobel prize for this is a joke, when there are hundreds of other who have done more rewarding and honest research and who were more deserving.

Rich

prospector
10-14-2007, 08:00 PM
russia has had pretty reasonable policies lately,
So what is Putin doin lately by consolidating all the power back into the Kremlin again, like before?

Stooch
10-14-2007, 08:11 PM
why are you so concerned about putin and what he does in russia? do you live in russia? do you not see his approval ratings? obviously people want him in office. His actions concern russians, and america and yourself need to keep your nose out of how they run their country. bush on the other hand is shitting ont he constitution and invading countries. why arent you concerned more about him?

i think that putin is a great solid president. he is the best thing that has happened to russia in a long time. finally someone to be proud of for once. you cant say the same for bush and the retarded joke of an election that got him in office and the skewed and corrupt system that keeps those with money in power rather then those who are actually favored by the people. like, gasp... putin

america used to be free. now freedom is an oxymoron. more like blissfully ignorant.

Exception
10-14-2007, 08:13 PM
why arent you concerned more about him?

I don't think he's going to get it.
Let's have a beer in a bar Stooch, there's enough we disagree on to have a decent and perhaps somewhat informed discussion :)

prospector
10-14-2007, 08:14 PM
You want to feed the European souls that died fighting the Germans?
Oh contrair...they were probably thinking thier country would win, they were great, they are probably rolling in their graves knowing that for all they gave (their lives) their country still surrendered. They were the heroes of the wars.
You can be assured I hold them in higher reguard than the one who signed the surrender papers.


The Mayor and Governor are part of the US government are they not?
No, they are part of Louisiana government and state law requires them or rather govorner to request US Govt help. She didn't, they didn't untill it was too late and US Gov't decided to come in anyway. Don't cover for 2 people who let their citizens die for no reason...they had plenty of warning the winds were coming, they did nothing.

Exception
10-14-2007, 08:32 PM
No, they are part of Louisiana government and state law requires them or rather govorner to request US Govt help. She didn't, they didn't untill it was too late and US Gov't decided to come in anyway. Don't cover for 2 people who let their citizens die for no reason...they had plenty of warning the winds were coming, they did nothing.

I'm not covering for them, you are defending a country structure that shows how flawed it is when a single natural disaster occurs, and can't get their affairs in order over weeks. Louisiana is, as far as I know, still a part of the US.
And FEMA did a great job too.
Oh the Us is so messed up.

hrgiger
10-14-2007, 08:41 PM
why are you so concerned about putin and what he does in russia? do you live in russia? do you not see his approval ratings? obviously people want him in office. His actions concern russians, and america and yourself need to keep your nose out of how they run their country. bush on the other hand is shitting ont he constitution and invading countries. why arent you concerned more about him?

i think that putin is a great solid president. he is the best thing that has happened to russia in a long time. finally someone to be proud of for once. you cant say the same for bush and the retarded joke of an election that got him in office and the skewed and corrupt system that keeps those with money in power rather then those who are actually favored by the people. like, gasp... putin

america used to be free. now freedom is an oxymoron. more like blissfully ignorant.

It's always good to see we agree on some things brother.

prospector
10-14-2007, 09:21 PM
Louisiana is, as far as I know, still a part of the US.
It is, and I'm pretty sure AT&T had phonelines there a week before the winds came. And I'm reasonably sure the governor or one of the aids knew how to work a phone. And AT&T would have let a phone call over their lines.
But none was coming....
Nothing was flawed except the Governor and Mayor.

Exception
10-14-2007, 09:57 PM
It is, and I'm pretty sure AT&T had phonelines there a week before the winds came. And I'm reasonably sure the governor or one of the aids knew how to work a phone. And AT&T would have let a phone call over their lines.
But none was coming....
Nothing was flawed except the Governor and Mayor.

Oh, so there might be dying people out there, television crews all over the country rushing there to report on the horrendous circumstances, but because someone didn't pick up the phone, the aid agencies and institutions just hang back and wait until the mayor asks them over for coffee?
All the hallmarks of a fantastic country with some great humanitarian foundations.
Face it, your whole governmental system is messed up. How can you expect to do something 'right' across the globe, when you can't even manage a natural disaster relief in your own back yard?