[TheBulldozer]

Fact: the actions of humans are damaging to Earth.

Naming this phenomenon is just a matter of marketing and making money.

[Que enspastic]

Another fact: even most politicians opposed to taking action do so because they don't want to face immediate economic ramifications that the electorate would not like.

It's a bit like prisoner's dilemma. If all countries act then it can be stopped (could have been stopped, maybe it's too late?) but if only a few act, the economic slack with be taken up by countries that refuse to act.

Human-made global warming - not really a debate on whether it exists but whether governments will be able to collaborate and stop it.

I doubt the issue will be seriously tackled.

[The Beast1]

I honestly don't care if a bunch of people believe or not believe in global warming.

However, we should be conserving our resources and limiting population growth. We have the technology to use less and do more. Yes it's costly but i have to inherit this mess you boomers left us with.

Whether or not it is a sham is a moot point. This terrarium we call earth is limited in what it has. It's time we start respecting that instead of om nom noming everything in sight.

We should also be utilizing more nuclear. Thorium based reactors are perfect for our needs. The reason all of that "nucular " waste is radioactive means it can still be used for stuff. It's all leftover scraps from the cold war and making nuclear weapons.

[Aliblahba]

(09-16-2013 10:30 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 07:49 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

I know and talk to an amazingly diverse of people, but I'll keep this short.

Group A

Very intelligent and highly educated people from many disciplines. Things they say concerning global warming:

"I see too many reports contradicting"
"Too much evidence is shown against"
"Its hard to form an opinion on what is shown"
"In my opinion I don't believe in GW, or at least to the extent claimed"

Group B

Liberal Arts wearing hemp and reeks of patchouli. Things they say concerning global warming:

"Like fuck yeah you're killing the environment"
"Who needs a study just look around"
"I learned this shit in college. Fuck you"
"Science is god, and it says GW is real"
"I know the ice caps are shrinking, saw it on my tv"


The latter group makes it tough to believe their argument. Again, liberals massing towards another cause to be fanatical about. Same as gun control, rape, womens rights, gender inequality, ect.

Group A: Appeal to authority.
Group B: Ad hominem.

Do you have an actual logical argument against global warming? Or just fallacies?

Thanks for proving my point. I'd give you a +1 but it might take extra electricity and that would be bad for the planet and you might get angry about it.

[Grit]

Gah, the ego in this thread is ridiculous. I know its important to save face by subtly reframing the issue toward "general environmental concern" instead of global warming, but you reframers ned to be held accountable for the *thousands of millions* of government dollars spent on this shit. You are voting for this.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20...-hysteria/

So, enlighten the masses: how many more reframes do you need to save face?
1. "Global warming is a terrible threat! The polar ice will cause terrible sea level changes and will flood entire coastal areas!"
2."We need to combat this global climate shift, where we can expect lots of drastic heating and cooling, and extreme storms!"
3. "We just need to be more environmentally aware period."

P.S. Hurricane season is well on its way to adding political fuel to the fire, since there has only been one named storm the ENTIRE season. Thats not happened for several decades. So much for more powerful storm systems.

[Aliblahba]

(09-17-2013 08:14 AM)Grit Wrote:  

So, enlighten the masses: how many more reframes do you need to save face?

The concern now is "global impact". This will literally "overshadow" the other issues they need to "bury".

People will turn their fanatical eyes to the skies vote to spend billions to keep an eye out on asteroids and other projectiles from hitting the Earth.

The biggest red herring yet, but the liberals (chicken little) need something to preach about to the rest of us ignorants.

[DVY]

(09-17-2013 05:55 AM)MaleDefined Wrote:  

Fact: the actions of humans are damaging to Earth.

Naming this phenomenon is just a matter of marketing and making money.

^^^This. Its a spector of an issue.

We are chasing a ghost/symptom. The true cause of all this "environmental problems" are humans.

Nobody has the heart to say this or even offer a solution. Its just another cash-grab and business as usual.

[Veloce]

(09-17-2013 05:55 AM)MaleDefined Wrote:  

Fact: the actions of humans are damaging to Earth.

See, still not accurate, at least from a scientific perspective.

When you say Earth, you're talking about a planet with many complex systems, from volcanic activity, plate tectonics, to geological development, atmosphere composition, ocean currents, etc etc etc. These systems have been in place for BILLIONS of years. The human mind can't even fathom how long that is.

Just to put things in perspective:
Written human history goes back about 6,000 years, give or take. Everything that has ever been recorded, our entire history. Every empire, every age, every text and script. 6,000 years.

Our species has been around 60,000 years. Even this is nearly impossible to fathom. The incredible speed at which we've progressed over the last several hundred years give us a skewed perspective as to how time on earth progresses.

250 million years ago, there was an extinction event that killed 96% of all life on the planet. The 4% that survived evolved into every species that exists today. 250 MILLION years. Not thousands, not tens or hundreds of thousands, not even millions, but hundreds of millions of years. Our minds cannot comprehend just how long this is.

The earth is about 4-5 BILLION years old. Starting to sink in?

We could dump billions of gallons of oil into the ocean, we could set off every nuclear warhead on earth, we could ignite every last gram of explosive and combustible gas, powder, liquid on earth. It wouldn't make a difference. The Earth would keep doing what it's been doing for a very, very long time.

The statements: "We are hurting the environment" and "We are hurting the Earth" are a very ego and human-centric perspective. We might ALTER certain cycles that exist in nature. We might AFFECT biodiversity and carbon cycles (albeit rather insignificantly). But there is no such thing as "Hurting the Earth".

When predators out in nature overpopulate beyond their food supply, they starve to death. When herbivores overpopulate with a lack of natural predators, they develop diseases and die off. Nature always equalizes, and not all of our technology or intelligence can do a goddamn thing about it if it's our time to go.

All of our concern for environmental protection should be towards humans. It is for OUR survival that we develop sustainable food supplies. We should be concerned with OUR environment for OUR survival. Blanket statements like "THE environment" make no sense. Which environment? There are many. The HUMAN environment is what should concern us most; imagine that it's our bubble that keeps us warm, safe, and well-fed. How can we maintain that bubble and make it as efficient as possible so we can remain a dominant species, THAT should be our concern.

[Aliblahba]

History Channel could air a show about how humans caused the dinosaur extinction from cooking fires and the majority will believe it.

It is very telling when some continually cries about how better technology needs to help the environment. That lets me know they know nothing about the world. The tech is there, been patented, and is sits tucked away. I won't waste time explaining it as most can't fathom the whole picture, but just know end the end one revolutionary idea could destroy the worlds economy. That in turn will cause anarchy, resulting in many reasons for sudden reduction in population, in which that technology will be needed at that point.

Ironic isn't it?

Now for mother earth. She is just fine, and will always take care of herself. "Mother nature", ie God will cleanse the planet when it needs to be. Passages in the Bible tell us to take care of it, and when it is ignored, he will fix it.

Science people like to think humans are resilient due to the amazing advancements in medicine and technology, when in fact we are probably the weakest animal on the planet. We are just one virus strain away from a modern day plague. I don't mean the common cold, but some heavy hitting shit like a airborne variety of the bird flu or eboli. Those organisms are constantly evolving and science is so far from catching up, nor will they.

One massive, or string or volcanic eruptions can decimate the population, a couple massive tsunamis, one mind blowing earthquake on the right seaboard. This won't just cause the immediate loss of countless lives, but severe economic global impact. Again, world political meltdown=war/starvation/genocide/lower birthrates.

The less people the less pollution. But yes, we do need to take better care of the planet, but it will never really be in our nature to do so.

[TheSlayer]

(09-17-2013 03:56 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

"Mother nature", ie God will cleanse the planet when it needs to be. Passages in the Bible tell us to take care of it, and when it is ignored, he will fix it.

[Starke]

So in summary, climate change can't be real because;

...Al Gore once smoked half a cigarette. Therefore hypocrite!!!

...Polar bears are dying out, I seen 8 at my local Sea World

...I had to wear a jacket this winter, does that sound like warming to you?

...Do you think God/Jesus/Mohammed would do this to us? we're his favourite!!!

...The Koch brothers and their army of surrogates seem like totally reasonable guys, I can't think of any possible conflicts of interest they would posess...

...I don't like thinking about the consequences of my decisions

...A parasite doesn't want to know that its habits are killing the host

[Duke Castile]

(09-17-2013 06:41 PM)Starke Wrote:  

So in summary, climate change can't be real because;

...Al Gore once smoked half a cigarette. Therefore hypocrite!!!

...Polar bears are dying out, I seen 8 at my local Sea World

...I had to wear a jacket this winter, does that sound like warming to you?

...Do you think God/Jesus/Mohammed would do this to us? we're his favourite!!!

...The Koch brothers and their army of surrogates seem like totally reasonable guys, I can't think of any possible conflicts of interest they would posess...

...I don't like thinking about the consequences of my decisions

...A parasite doesn't want to know that its habits are killing the host

No, in summary you didn't read anything in the thread and you're a smartass.

[Aliblahba]

(09-17-2013 04:04 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 03:56 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

"Mother nature", ie God will cleanse the planet when it needs to be. Passages in the Bible tell us to take care of it, and when it is ignored, he will fix it.

Blows your mind doesn't it?

[Starke]

(09-17-2013 12:04 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

We might AFFECT biodiversity and carbon cycles (albeit rather insignificantly).

Your interpretation of the word 'insignificantly' seems quite different to the one I'm aware of...


We're currently operating at over 100x the earth's base rate of extinction.
Unless there has been a Moon-sized object which has crashed into our planet in the past 100 years which nobody has told me about, I'd suggest that humans have quite a bit to do with this.

Quote:

All of our concern for environmental protection should be towards humans.

And now we see where you're coming from. At least be honest and admit you don't give a shit about the environment or the creatures inhabiting it.

Not giving a damn is fine, but it smacks of total intellectual dishonesty to try to diminish the decline of biodiversity and the wider environment when you can't factually support it and your motive is one of carelessness.

[Starke]

(09-17-2013 06:46 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

No, in summary you didn't read anything in the thread and you're a smartass.

Nope, read the entire thing.

If one is going to throw around accusations of smartassery, it's good form to abstain from indulging in the behavior yourself;

(09-17-2013 06:46 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Well that just solves it for me. I'm switching sides because biologicaldiversity.org said I should be a self loathing human.

[Veloce]

(09-17-2013 06:54 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:04 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

We might AFFECT biodiversity and carbon cycles (albeit rather insignificantly).

Your interpretation of the word 'insignificantly' seems quite different to the one I'm aware of...


We're currently operating at over 100x the earth's base rate of extinction.
Unless there has been a Moon-sized object which has crashed into our planet in the past 100 years which nobody has told me about, I'd suggest that humans have quite a bit to do with this.

Quote:

All of our concern for environmental protection should be towards humans.

And now we see where you're coming from. At least be honest and admit you don't give a shit about the environment or the creatures inhabiting it.

Not giving a damn is fine, but it smacks of total intellectual dishonesty to try to diminish the decline of biodiversity and the wider environment when you can't factually support it and your motive is one of carelessness.

Cherry-picking my post to conveniently argue minute details normally wouldn't deserve a response, but I'll just point out the glaringly obvious:

Read my last post again. I stand by my statement which is completely in line with a historical understanding of taxonomy: Every species that exists today could be wiped out, and in the end, it wouldn't matter, except to HUMAN survival. It IS insignificant in a cosmic sense. Noone but humans gives a shit about species that are going the way of the Dodo. What is our obligation toward Mother Earth? None. We are a species like any other, an inherently designed to be the most dominant. Our only responsibility is toward self-preservation.

If you're at odds with that or have a problem with it, there are plenty of organizations you can join to try and convince people like myself that it's our job to maintain stewardship over all living creatures. I'm sure you'll enjoy their tree-hugging rituals greatly.

If humans didn't exist, the Earth would flourish with an array of biodiversity that we've never seen before. If humans destroy all biodiversity, we'll kill ourselves off.

Either way, the Earth will be perfectly fine.

Intellectual dishonesty...that's a good one. Nowhere in my post did I diminish the decline of biodiversity, and if anything I readily acknowledge it.

"A motive of carelessness", I'm not sure that's even possible. You can't be motivated to not care. I suggest re-reading posts before offering responses that are this inane.

[Veloce]

(09-17-2013 06:41 PM)Starke Wrote:  

...A parasite doesn't want to know that its habits are killing the host

And another thing: this is just self-loathing, pure and simple. There have been many species throughout history that have been too successful, and nature eventually dealt with them. However, during their heyday, would you still consider them parasites? Is it wrong to be the most dominant species on Earth. Is it wrong that we have abstract thought and extremely large brains relative to our body mass?

Humans are absolutely capable of living off the Earth in a harmonious, sustainable, and mutually beneficial manner, even if much of the developed world chooses not to. We don't even REMOTELY fit the biological definition of 'parasite', and it's extremely childish and small-minded of you to make this assertion.

[scotian]

(09-17-2013 10:01 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 06:54 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:04 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

We might AFFECT biodiversity and carbon cycles (albeit rather insignificantly).

Your interpretation of the word 'insignificantly' seems quite different to the one I'm aware of...


We're currently operating at over 100x the earth's base rate of extinction.
Unless there has been a Moon-sized object which has crashed into our planet in the past 100 years which nobody has told me about, I'd suggest that humans have quite a bit to do with this.

Quote:

All of our concern for environmental protection should be towards humans.

And now we see where you're coming from. At least be honest and admit you don't give a shit about the environment or the creatures inhabiting it.

Not giving a damn is fine, but it smacks of total intellectual dishonesty to try to diminish the decline of biodiversity and the wider environment when you can't factually support it and your motive is one of carelessness.

Cherry-picking my post to conveniently argue minute details normally wouldn't deserve a response, but I'll just point out the glaringly obvious:

Read my last post again. I stand by my statement which is completely in line with a historical understanding of taxonomy: Every species that exists today could be wiped out, and in the end, it wouldn't matter, except to HUMAN survival. It IS insignificant in a cosmic sense. Noone but humans gives a shit about species that are going the way of the Dodo. What is our obligation toward Mother Earth? None. We are a species like any other, an inherently designed to be the most dominant. Our only responsibility is toward self-preservation.

If you're at odds with that or have a problem with it, there are plenty of organizations you can join to try and convince people like myself that it's our job to maintain stewardship over all living creatures. I'm sure you'll enjoy their tree-hugging rituals greatly.

If humans didn't exist, the Earth would flourish with an array of biodiversity that we've never seen before. If humans destroy all biodiversity, we'll kill ourselves off.

Either way, the Earth will be perfectly fine.

Intellectual dishonesty...that's a good one. Nowhere in my post did I diminish the decline of biodiversity, and if anything I readily acknowledge it.

"A motive of carelessness", I'm not sure that's even possible. You can't be motivated to not care. I suggest re-reading posts before offering responses that are this inane.

The Dude3737's first post reminded me of this by the late great George Carlin:

His last post reminded me of a funny video of tree huggers crying that I saw awhile back, I can't believe these ding bats exist:

Solid posts, Dude.

[Duke Castile]

(09-17-2013 07:10 PM)Starke Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 06:46 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

No, in summary you didn't read anything in the thread and you're a smartass.

Nope, read the entire thing.

If one is going to throw around accusations of smartassery, it's good form to abstain from indulging in the behavior yourself;

(09-17-2013 06:46 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Well that just solves it for me. I'm switching sides because biologicaldiversity.org said I should be a self loathing human.

I addressed a specific questionable source, you just insulted everyone that doesn't agree with you. See the difference?

[Duke Castile]

(09-17-2013 10:10 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 06:41 PM)Starke Wrote:  

...A parasite doesn't want to know that its habits are killing the host

And another thing: this is just self-loathing, pure and simple. There have been many species throughout history that have been too successful, and nature eventually dealt with them. However, during their heyday, would you still consider them parasites? Is it wrong to be the most dominant species on Earth. Is it wrong that we have abstract thought and extremely large brains relative to our body mass?

Humans are absolutely capable of living off the Earth in a harmonious, sustainable, and mutually beneficial manner, even if much of the developed world chooses not to. We don't even REMOTELY fit the biological definition of 'parasite', and it's extremely childish and small-minded of you to make this assertion.

Totally self loathing. Referring to yourself as a parasite.

There were some lions I was watching on the nature channel once, the pride moved into an area by mistake that was somewhat isolated, it had plenty of water which was rare, it had plenty of accessible game which was also rare.

This vista caused these lions to become super strong compared to the others roaming around that were less well nourished.

Everytime a rogue male would come in he'd be easily defeated.

The lions in this areas undoing was because there were no other lions powerful enough to come in and share their genes and the pride basically died from to much inbreeding.

Now, were these lions parasites?

[Christian McQueen]

Ah trust DVY to drop a thread like this and wreak havoc on the forum. The Dentist strikes again!

Global warming IS true because my balls get extra hot and sweaty when I workout, compared to years past.

Global warming is NOT true because when I take a cold shower my normally extra-large balls shrink to the size of seedless grapes, compared to years past.

Ok, I'm out. Carry on...

[ImmoralPsychology]

The earth will survive just fine, no matter what we do to it. It's the species that may not survive.

If you believe that the actions of humans are affecting the earth in a negative way, you could be correct. But no, the evidence is not 'clear' either way.

However, if you truly believe that the actions of humans are destroying the earth you have a choice. Acknowledge it but accept the fact that you're willing to sacrifice it for the lifestyle you want to live and stfu. Or, if you want to give everyone a sermon about their actions, then give up doing everything that requires fossil energy. You complain about the guy with the Hummer because you drive a Prius. Big fucking deal. Priuses use gas too and need a lot of energy to be manufactured in the first place. You know what uses less energy than a Prius? A bicycle. Less than a bicycle? Walking. Just because YOU decided that you acceptable level of pollution is a Prius doesn't mean you can dictate what every other person's acceptable limit should be. I don't drive a car at all. Does that give me the right to bitch at you for driving a Prius? Does that make me somehow more ethical than you?

If you want to have the moral right to bitch at people, you must do EVERYTHING YOU CAN to reduce your emissions to the lowest you can possible. Here's a hint. If you're reading this on a computer, then you are not doing that. You're a hypocrite if you can read this message in the first place. I'll bet you any money you're not only consuming energy to power your computer (and it had to be made and shipped to the store, etc., too), but you're almost certainly living in a heated or air conditioned house, you are wearing clothes rather than having gone out to kill a few animals for their pelts and you buy your food at the supermarket. You eat mangos? You mean the fruit that doesn't grow in your backyard that you had to have trucked to your area? Stop eating every single food item that doesn't grow within walking distance.

Or take ownership. I am not convinced that the climate is changing because of us but I acknowledge that it's very possible. Very possible. But it doesn't matter. I'm not going to go live in the jungle, even if it does result in the earth's resources being depleted. I won't, and you won't either, so stfu already. It doesn't fucking matter unless you're willing to make big ass changes in how you live, and you're NOT ready to do that, are you?

Here's a question. Does it even matter if the earth is uninhabitable in 200 years? You and no one you know will be alive then. We know the world will be uninhabitable someday. At the very latest, when the sun extinguishes. What difference does it make if the end is in 200 years or in 50,000 years or 1.2 million years? Even if we developed science that IMPROVES the environment's condition, we are all still doomed as a species eventually. Who cares when that is?

[bojangles]

I blame Hollywood quite a bit for this, only in Star Trek does the earth seem similar to how it is now in terms of urbanisation and jungle, in every other futuristic flick, the earth is a barren waste land except for big megacities, or big megacities are just ruins and there lots of deserts and shit.

Humans can't destroy Earth, Earth can destroy us, there's supervolcanoes, huge earthquakes, cosmic impacts. There's been 5 major extinction events, each one led to a new dynasty of animals inhabiting the earth for millions of years, that will continue to happen until the earth is swallowed up by the sun. We won't be here forever, we'll probably have fucked off somewhere else, or died because some fucking volcano erupted somewhere and Will Smith was the only guy left on the planet.

[Thomas the Rhymer]

[kosko]

Meanwhile in Egypt....




First time it has snowed in Egypt in 100 years.

Again record cooling has been going on across the globe this year. Green-nazi's and Climate Change folks have been quiet on this all. They tried to sell us for 20 years that the earth was heating then switched it all to climate that was changing, which is completely abstract since the earth's "climate" is abstract with many marco factors effecting it. Large marco scale shifts such as water temperatures effect the global system but that is caused by the sun and not our own atmosphere. The earth is going through these patterns naturally.