joining together to fight global warming

[Hillzy]

Originally Posted by BumbleBeeMouth

the most harm can result from the best intentions when the nature of cause and effect is unknown. See:

the waste of the opportunity to eradicate, or at least permanantly minimise the risk of many many diseases through the intelligent and restrictive use of antibiotics

Thalidomide

DDT

CFC's

TNT

The list goes on.

My point is, that in focusing all of our attention and resources on the potential danger in this matter, how can we be sure that we arent downplaying other more urgent concerns simply because they are not economically paramount.

Weird, weird examples you've chosen... but anyway - assuming you are correct about it all being overblown etc, what do you think is the motivation for all these hordes of scientists who say it is occuring? Do you think you know something they don't? Or have they all been corrupted by some vast conspiracy?

I'm not necessarily criticising your argument, I'm just interested in how you think this thing could be so overstated.

[celluloid_love]

i'm kind of ashamed to be australian after trev's posts

[I'm Hardcore]

the most stupid thread in a long time

[Debaser]

lord knows you can't expect humanity to muster up the resources to both minimize global warming and fight the threat of super diseases from the overuse of antibiotics AT THE SAME TIME!

[trev]

the people of the world, as a generalisation, are selfish.
they don't like changing their behaviour.
they don't like things being expensive.

now as was mentioned before, you have 11,000 or so scientists claiming one thing. you have 60 or so opposed.

technically there is nothing wrong with expressing that opposing opinion. te4chnically it should be healthy to.

but when people have the choice to "believe" that:
they need to drastically change their behaviour, lifestyles, spend more money on things to provide what they already have etc.
or
it's not a problem and we can safely ignore it

what do you think a lot of people are going to decide is right?

that is why some freedom of speech and voicing some points of view are, unfortunately, best left not shared. i'm not saying it's right, or fair, but it might give the best outcome for everyone, especially for future generations.

11,000 to 60. and people here are arguing like they know better.

it's going to be hard enough to get huge populations of democracies to improve their lifestyle impacts on the environment even if it's 100% conclusive about what the consequenses are, seeing as though so many people just don't care. add some other "out" for them (global warming is not a problem) and it makes it so much harder.

so yes, in my eyes people who share these type of views around and give any real weight to them, are dickheads. think a few steps ahead about the full picture of what the world is dealing with.

[Starla]

It's too late. let's learn how to live with extreme weather patterns and enjoy it....

[Trotskilicious]

FALL JUST STARTED IN TEXAS THIS IS WRONG

[dean_r_koontz]

ok i'm too lazy and have too much to do in school to properly respond to any arguments here but i will say this:
1. the global warming we experience right now is caused by humans.
2.we're all fucked

and then a question for bardy:
the nobel prize comittee gave the peace price to al gore and an organization that have been involved in trying to fight global warming. why is that do you think? this is a specific question for bardy, i don't want some other numbskull answering. you got 12 votes or whatever in the intelligence poll, show me some of those brains!

[dean_r_koontz]

the question isn't really an argument, i'm too lazy like i said

[dean_r_koontz]

Originally Posted by trev

the people of the world, as a generalisation, are selfish.
they don't like changing their behaviour.
they don't like things being expensive.

now as was mentioned before, you have 11,000 or so scientists claiming one thing. you have 60 or so opposed.

technically there is nothing wrong with expressing that opposing opinion. te4chnically it should be healthy to.

but when people have the choice to "believe" that:
they need to drastically change their behaviour, lifestyles, spend more money on things to provide what they already have etc.
or
it's not a problem and we can safely ignore it

what do you think a lot of people are going to decide is right?

that is why some freedom of speech and voicing some points of view are, unfortunately, best left not shared. i'm not saying it's right, or fair, but it might give the best outcome for everyone, especially for future generations.

11,000 to 60. and people here are arguing like they know better.

it's going to be hard enough to get huge populations of democracies to improve their lifestyle impacts on the environment even if it's 100% conclusive about what the consequenses are, seeing as though so many people just don't care. add some other "out" for them (global warming is not a problem) and it makes it so much harder.

so yes, in my eyes people who share these type of views around and give any real weight to them, are dickheads. think a few steps ahead about the full picture of what the world is dealing with.

yeah it's a drag. a big problem with global warming is that it's not as obvious as say, getting a nuclear bomb in the head. it's easier and more CONVENIENT to pretend that it's not caused by humans and blah blah blah. we'll have to wait for some major disasters in the us before there is a significant shift there. hopefully it's not too late by then

[dean_r_koontz]

i would probably pretend that it didn't exist as well if my brain was functioning right but as we all know. it doesn't.

[trev]

you've definitely got the hang of the whole multiple posts in a row thing going dean.

[dean_r_koontz]

i've got the hang on sucking

[flavin]

I'm writing a paper on solar energy.
It would be nice to see it used more, since it requires no fuel and gives off no emissions.

edit: Oh, I see you covered commercial building-integrated photovoltaics, but there are also solar power plants (PV and thermal) that supply electricity to regular buildings, although they can supply to far less people that other kinds of power plants.

[trev]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

i've got the hang on sucking

man of many talents then.

[BumbleBeeMouth]

Originally Posted by Debaser

lord knows you can't expect humanity to muster up the resources to both minimize global warming and fight the threat of super diseases from the overuse of antibiotics AT THE SAME TIME!

Yes, i understand that. My point was more along the lines of fools rush in.

I do feel that the government places too much pressure on global warming in relation to its importance, down to both the hunt for popularity (green thinking is seen as admirable) and the current dependence on fossil fuels.

The fact of the matter is that due to the current political climate and increased scarcity of resources, the government needs to find a scapegoat for increasing the price of fossil fuels. If they can guilt trip you into using them less then it softens the blow. Please dont misquote me here, there is nothing wrong with minimising the consumption of fossil fuels, however i take umbrage with the methods used with which to do so. It is quite simply, brainwashing the ignorant to provide cultural weight to an argument. People will believe something if they want to, or are afraid it might be true.


That whole live earth concert left me pretty much apopleptic with fury, but i will save that for another time.

11,000 to 60. and people here are arguing like they know better.

Trev You must be the most awesome troll ever. SINCE WHEN DID THE WEIGHT OF NUMBERS JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY OF ANYTHING!! flat earth, geocentric view, witches, black people not having rights. You are quite naive, or come across that way.



Hillzy, no, it isnt a vast conspiracy, the arguments for and against can both be argued competently, i must admit, that perhaps we are doing something. The fact is that it is difficult to truly know, and that is my sticking point.


@Debaser, in terms of solar activity having little effect on the trend for warmer temperatures, the use of this example was more as an additional variable to consider, and it is kind of the prime variable. Maybe ive just had a long day, but the article you linked me to, seems rather inconclusive, there are also geothermal variations, trophosphere anomalies and ocean current trends to consider. I mean, the information available is quite staggering to comprehend in its totality.


Wow, this is my first tl;dr Sorry...

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by BumbleBeeMouth

The fact of the matter is that due to the current political climate and increased scarcity of resources, the government needs to find a scapegoat for increasing the price of fossil fuels. If they can guilt trip you into using them less then it softens the blow. Please dont misquote me here, there is nothing wrong with minimising the consumption of fossil fuels, however i take umbrage with the methods used with which to do so. It is quite simply, brainwashing the ignorant to provide cultural weight to an argument. People will believe something if they want to, or are afraid it might be true.

It seems like you are grasping for some ulterior conspiracy motive to explain why (the vast majority of) climate scientists are trying to pull this global warming "hoax" over everybody.

There is no need for a "scapegoat" for the increasing price of oil. The plain fact of depleting fossil fuels and instability in the middle east are easily accepted reasons. So that motive makes no sense.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

i would probably pretend that it didn't exist as well if my brain was functioning right but as we all know. it doesn't.

Most americans are too self absorbed to give a shit about global warming. They are fat, lazy, have a cell phone attached to one ear, an ipod in the other, a game controller in their hands, and a big summer sausage shoved in their mouths.

[BumbleBeeMouth]

a lovely sweeping generalisation there.

[hnibos]

Originally Posted by To Starla

Most americans are too self absorbed to give a shit about global warming. They are fat, lazy, have a cell phone attached to one ear, an ipod in the other, a game controller in their hands, and a big summer sausage shoved in their mouths.

that could be said about most people in every country(except maybe the fat thing), it may not be a cell phone or an ipod, but they are too self absorbed in their own little world too.

[Nimrod's Son]

our planet has gotten hotter and cooler while we were still swinging in trees

[dean_r_koontz]

you big baby.

[Trotskilicious]

yes lets not concern ourselves with waste and pollution

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

our planet has gotten hotter and cooler while we were still swinging in trees

But not at this current dramatic rate just in the last couple decades.

[dean_r_koontz]

it's just a coincidence. earth has moved a bit closer to the sun for the first time ever.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

yes lets not concern ourselves with waste and pollution

i absolutely think we should be concerned about waste and pollution, but those are not the same as "global warming"

[Trotskilicious]

it has nothing to do with dramatic increase in the levels of air pollution

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Debaser

But not at this current dramatic rate just in the last couple decades.

two decades ago scientists were worried about global cooling

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by BumbleBeeMouth

a lovely sweeping generalisation there.

actually im' pretty sure her post can be backed up with numbers.

[Debaser]

fuck it. scientists don't predict us being truly fucked (cities. underwater.) for another 100 years. no worries, mate.