1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Imagine that...

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by H8R, Nov 1, 2011.

  1. panthercity

    panthercity Thread Killa

    Reading, it's fundamental...
     
  2. panthercity

    panthercity Thread Killa

    Did I say a DAMN thing about man-made?
     
  3. panthercity

    panthercity Thread Killa

    earacing, last I read, India is right up there in the top three with China and the U. S. of A.
     
  4. chuckbear

    chuckbear Totally radical, bro.

    :( I wanted a cookie.
     
  5. earacing

    earacing Race Dad

    Pretty soon we're going to have to buy carbon credits just to breathe.
     
  6. svtinker

    svtinker Well-Known Member

    Cigarettes only kill 50% of smokers so there's hope yet.
     
  7. chuckbear

    chuckbear Totally radical, bro.

    I totally get the point you're making about global pollution, but I don't see a reason to gauge what our environmental strategy should be by what other countries do. We should do what's right for us.

    Let me just say right now, forget the anthropogenic climate change argument. Cleaner water, less reliance on oil (yes, it will run out some day), cleaner air, creation of jobs. Even if anthropogenic climate change is in fact wrong, there are benefits to be had from exploring cleaner, renewable options for energy, packaging, transportation, manufacturing processes, etc.
     
  8. earacing

    earacing Race Dad

    Up there how? Without looking up the statistics, I believe I have read that we have higher per-capita emmisson, waste, etc. because of our higher standard of living and all the accoutrements of the modern American lifestyle. We individually have lots more stuff than your average Indian.

    My point is that addressing pollution is a completely different subject than climate change. They overlap, but pollution covers many other areas, such as clean water and such.
     
  9. earacing

    earacing Race Dad

    They ARE a dying breed...

    But address my point on cap and trade schemes. Enlighten those of us not "in the know".

    I don't think anyone is arguing that fighting pollution in general is a bad thing. Like I said, we have come a long way in that regard and are continuing to do so. The argument that green energy is good for the environment is solid. It's the argument that green energy use will change the climate that is in contention.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2011
  10. panthercity

    panthercity Thread Killa

    Tons of CO2 per nation.

    No shit? :rolleyes:
     
  11. ThrottleAbuse

    ThrottleAbuse Will Race for CASH!

    On the most prevalent greenhouse gas? I considered it common knowledge so I didn't bother linking some of the articles I have linked in the past. Same with the fluctuation numbers.

    No. The "worst case" portion of the statement led me astray.
     
  12. earacing

    earacing Race Dad

    I know, obvious, right? :)

    I made the point because the pollution of 7 billion people was linked the topic at hand, climate change.

    Come on panther, you're "in the know"! You should be able to keep up! :D
     
  13. panthercity

    panthercity Thread Killa

    Why you quote stinker and ask me a question? I'm rarely "in the know". Just ask Anna.
     
  14. RCjohn

    RCjohn Killin machine.

    :D
     
  15. panthercity

    panthercity Thread Killa

    The worst case prediction was a 7% increase.

    Again, what does that have to do with "Man made"?
     
  16. ThrottleAbuse

    ThrottleAbuse Will Race for CASH!

    Its stupid to try and predict what the planet will do and call it "worst case" One good volcanic eruption can ruin any stupid prediction. I assumed someone dumb enough to use "worst case" would only be referring to man made emissions. Doesn't really matter as CO2 emissions are not at all the largest greenhouse gas. Climate "science" is a joke. The freakin weatherman can't even get tomorrows forecast right let alone what is going on next year, decade, or century.
     
  17. In Your Corner

    In Your Corner Dungeonesque Crab AI Version

    Poor comparison. Drug companies actually have to produce a product that accomplishes something. The climate scientists in question (that 97% cited) have started with the assumption that the earth is warming and that it is caused by man. They are seeking evidence to bolster that assumption, and disregarding/suppressing evidence to the contrary. Climategate pointed out some of that, but there were already actions to point to that fact.

    As I pointed-out earlier, the scientific proof for a theory is the inability to disprove it. That isn't accomplished by gaming the studies.
    It is how we end up with non-scientific facts to prove a theory needed to further political ends.
    I believe I pointed this out once before with research done that proves that secondhand smoke kills. Everybody knows that fact. The problem is, the research doesn't back it up. Instead, the "evidence" was manufactured by misusing data and ignoring all data that didn't conform to the results desired.
    That's not science, it's fraud.
    Many scientists have become the equivalent of snake oil salesmen.
     
  18. panthercity

    panthercity Thread Killa

    The Good Lord loves assumptions.
     
  19. svtinker

    svtinker Well-Known Member

    The thing that scares me is the same people/mentality that helped cause the financial crisis stand in league regarding climate change. Do we really want our future left to these knaves?
     
  20. In Your Corner

    In Your Corner Dungeonesque Crab AI Version

    I agree, the far left can't be trusted to control our future.
    Glad to see we're on the same page here.
     

Share This Page