User Tag List

First 4121314151624 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 263

  1. #131
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    I personally think that the whole global warming thing is often exaggerated or used to create new business opportunities. Especially my government is a driving force in this.

    I tho do support the idea of having 99%-recycleable products, meaning you produce things you can recycle and dont have to throw major parts of it away.

    Regarding sustainable energy sources, I dont think its a bad idea either, especially from the PoV of new business opportunities. The states having a median of 2200 wind energy hours / year are a perfect ground for converters; in comparism Germany has like only 1200 h / a .

    I am personally tho no fan of electric cars. They not only suck and aint cool, they are, and you all know the debate, much more inefficient than a small diezel engine ( regarding the electric power has to be produced somewhere else, which leads to new emissions and draining of ressources ). I know from my studies at University that there will be oil on this planet for the next 400 years. And thats only the known fields. It will be a problem if China and india for example will reach western wealth standards, but that still doesnt make it better to build electric cars than small diezel engines.

    I think the whole global warming debate wouldnt be a debate at all, if everyone from the start would try to have a sustainable or recyceable production and watch it that he doesnt interfere with its natural environment to much at all.

    the sumit in Copenhagen on climate change I personally think more had the idea to create something big, under which all nations unite. Something like a federation of planets like in StarTrek. It wasnt really only about having everyone agree with the no-more-hotter-than-3-degree-celsius idea in the end.

    I found it sad that it failed so hard. And especially Obamas behaviour was very irritating, who first of all was all for anti-global warming ideas and and backed up europeans with their ideas, then had a chat with the chinese and then left the sumit saying there are more pressuring things for him to do.

    That was just a bad show.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  2. #132
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    So how do we go about altering the international economy in such a way that it results in fewer greenhouse gasses, rather than increased poverty, more greenhouse gasses, and decreased discretionary funds for possible use by scientists such as yourself? As for increasing the funds, in your haste to dismiss my questions you must have skipped over the part where I agreed with you that more research and investment was a good idea. It also might be easier to raise public acceptance if scientists did not go around diminishing their credibility in their area of competency by stepping outside that area of competency and proposing solutions which essentially assume that individuals and societies are cogs in a machine that they posses the blueprints for.

    Greenhouse gasses are a problem (of uncertain magnitude), so go about researching technologies that make current energy sources economically more efficient or obsolete.
    First off I don't think you agree with me at all... I seem to think that protecting our environment trumps the economy and you seem to think that the economy trumps protecting our environment... Second we alter the economy by being creative and forcing penalties etc across the board on pain of invasion because otherwise we will all die. If you think people won't fight a war over fresh water to drink and farmland then you're nuts.

    your reasoning is that financial disaster will ensue if we subject companies etc to harsh regulations to make them comply to environmental practices that will ensure we have fresh water to drink and clean air to breath.

    I seem to think that the economy will be a moot point when we don't have clean air to breath, when we don't have fresh water to drink, when we no longer have enough solvents to make plastics, when we no longer have enough starting materials and solvents to make medications or even to make anesthetics needed for surgery... When we run out of materials to provide clothing for everyone in the world, when we run out of resources to construct more buildings to shelter our ever growing population, when we run out of farmland and cows etc to slaughter to feed them....

    This really isn't complicated. We can either evolve into different beings and no longer require the air and water etc we are destroying to live (not likely) or we can find a way to make the economy work while still being able to protect our environment.. It seems to me that if we all die there will be no need for the economy and though it might be difficult I am confident we can find a way to survive if we must alter the economy to accommodate the protection of the very things we need to survive...

    Yeah sure it will be an emotional challenge for people that want to have many kids to be asked to have just one, but imagine the alternative... when we really don't have enough material to cloth everyone or provide medication, food, and shelter to everyone the decisions will get a lot harder... How much fresh water does our current world population go through? How much farm land? How much live stock? This data can all be looked up, at what point will we reach critical mass? Now the fact is that we are most definitely (not sorta kinda maybe) having an impact on our environment that will have consequences - and is quite easy to see that staying our current course is fucking future generations if not ourselves out of the same quality of life that we currently enjoy...

    Tell me what is the point of having children and grandchildren if you are planning to condemn them to a horrible existence at best and possible extinction at worst? You are not qualified to make a judgement on the certainty of that fate because you cannot analyze the data thus you are forced to adopt the opinion of others who have analyzed the data for you... You've injected emotion etc into your assessment of this data and I unfortunately do not have that option... ignorance is bliss after all...
    But if you think we can't run out of plastics and textiles and solvents and medications then you are lying to yourself... These things are finite and yet we continue to expand... the breathable air and the fresh water on our planet are finite and if we continue to inject greenhouse gasses etc into our environment it is just a matter of time before the equilibrium shifts the other way...

    I could argue with you about this for hours and still we would get nowhere.. you cannot understand the data I provide and I will not concede that the economy should take precedence over the basic things we need to survive as the earth is capable of existing without the economy as are humans but the economy will cease to exist if we were to die off or our numbers were to be dramatically reduced by pollution induced catastrophic events.. It really is that simple... and that is the last thing I will say on this issue...
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  3. #133
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    The end of the world is nigh. Thank you, human race.

  4. #134
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    What the hell?

    Just about every business that is based on resource extraction has a reason to be against environmental protection.

    Pretty much every business that's based on heavy industrial production has a reason to be against environmental protection.

    Actually, exclude the ones that want to try and cash in on ethanol, agro-businesses have no reason to favor environmental protection.

    How on earth does the money trail lead to the environmentalists? How can you assume people fighting global warming are corporate pawns, and yet trust those who oppose doing anything about it, with the finances stacked like that?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #135
    I am Sofa King!!! kendoiwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    IsTP
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    What the hell?

    Just about every business that is based on resource extraction has a reason to be against environmental protection.

    Pretty much every business that's based on heavy industrial production has a reason to be against environmental protection.

    Actually, exclude the ones that want to try and cash in on ethanol, agro-businesses have no reason to favor environemtnal protection.

    How on earth does the money trail lead to the environmentalists? How can you assume people fighting global warming are corporate pawns, and yet trust those who oppose doing anything about it, with the finances stacked like that?
    It's Maaaaagic. No pun intended.
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1161526

    "They the type of cats who pollute the whole shoreline. Have it purified. Sell it for a $1.25"

  6. #136
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    First off I don't think you agree with me at all... I seem to think that protecting our environment trumps the economy and you seem to think that the economy trumps protecting our environment...

    Second we alter the economy by being creative and forcing penalties etc across the board on pain of invasion because otherwise we will all die. If you think people won't fight a war over fresh water to drink and farmland then you're nuts.
    1.) Whether "protecting the environment" (a much broader agenda than minimizing/stopping man-made climate-change) trumps economic goals in the abstract is immaterial; attempting through regulation to decrease global greenhouse gasses in spite of basic economic forces in the context of an international economy is a lot like trying to increase the supply of a good through price controls-it just doesn't work, and alternative means must be sought in pursuit of such goals.

    2.) "On pain of invasion" doesn't work very well when nuclear weapons enter the equation, but I'm glad you realize just what would be necessary to make a global regulatory scheme of such magnitude work-though most countries would be able to defect from such an effort without leaving behind actionable evidence in any event.

  7. #137
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Smile Frank Fenner

    The global eradication of smallpox was achieved by an Australian biologist, Frank Fenner.

    But just the other day Frank told us that global warming is now out of our control and that homo sapiens will become extinct within one hundred years.

    Frank was right about smallpox, let's hope he is wrong about our extinction.

  8. #138

  9. #139
    Member Desert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    intj
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    That's not what I said. You asked for a specific value and I tried to explain to you that one does not exist because the system we call planet earth is not static... I have a question for you.. exactly how many breaths of air does a human need to take in one day to survive.. an exact number.. not a range and you cannot adjust this for individuals, thus an active human weighing 160lbs gets the same amount of air intake as an infant. Would this work? If you were given numbers for any individual on planet earth picked at random (for exact amount of food needed, water needed, sleep needed, etc) what would the odds be that that number would be sufficient or even applicable to all humans on the planet at every given time. If you can't give me an exact number does that negate the fact that humans need air, or food and water to survive? Your logic is flawed. You can't discount the dynamic nature of humans as in we are not all the same age and the size with the same level of activity thus our resource intake cannot be reduced to a list of exact numbers that apply for all humans.

    Are all values for all parameters on our planet the same at any give time? Is the temperature, population, fresh water supply, farmland, rainfall, etc always static? The ranges that are needed to sustain life are easily found and the most ideal ranges would be from pre industrial times - this is not rocket science... The best parameters for our planet would be those that provide us with the most abundant and least polluted natural resources with the safest uv index.. this number however will change dependent on our population size, the chemicals we use, and the amount of land we are farming, waste produced, beasts being domesticated, etc, etc, etc... This is a very simplistic view this is not one number but rather many many numbers that are all interdependent on each other.. what I've described for you here is just a slice of the entire pie.... the dumbed down 3rd grade version if you will...

    Is this really that difficult for you to understand? Did you graduate high school and if so were there math classes or science classes required?
    Wow for a person who knows about numbers you don't really know much about debate Antisocial one between the two of you my money is on you

  10. #140
    meat popsicle r.a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    STFU
    Posts
    496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    The global eradication of smallpox was achieved by an Australian biologist, Frank Fenner.

    But just the other day Frank told us that global warming is now out of our control and that homo sapiens will become extinct within one hundred years.

    Frank was right about smallpox, let's hope he is wrong about our extinction.
    "All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and understanding, is destructive and evil. Leaders destroy the followers and the followers destroy the leaders. You have to be your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary."
    -
    J.Krishnamurti

Similar Threads

  1. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  2. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  3. Heat Wave Blamed On Global Warming
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-05-2012, 04:57 PM
  4. Current update on Global Warming!
    By swordpath in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 12-21-2008, 02:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO