To whoever its using Wikipedia to use as reliable data its scary..

Id go to Peer-review scientific articles. They may be very complex in language but you get a better idea there. I dont know why some people want their word against most if not all of the scintific community.

blah I still dont know what is it that people don't understand about human behaviors effect on climate change.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

I will just say, and it's probably already been said...Global Warming is not man made. It's just being accelerated by humans. It would have happened anyways, because the Earth's climate does heat up and cool...climate change does happen and there's no stopping it. We can just lessen the effects of it by cutting back our greenhouse gas emissions, being more energy efficient and clean. But we can't stop the climate change. Basically, it would have happened probably closer to 2030 or 2040, but due to our involvement, we've made it come sooner. So I don't agree it's "man made".

I do agree that humans can and do have an affect on the environment. My "beef" is that we will never conclusively prove human provoked global warming, so we need to stop acting so incredulous towards those who doubt its existence. Now, should we piss on the environment and continue with the way we treat it? Hell no. However, we need to realize that no matter what "data" or "facts" we cite, we can never know for sure that we are the definitive cause of climate change.

But hell, flame away. Run around like chicken little all you want...I could give a rat's ass. Post your graphs and data, but in the end it's all for naught.

This is seriously getting to the point of being worse than religion. The mentality of human-induced global warming believers is becoming; "If you don't believe what I believe, you're wrong and stupid, regardless of why you believe differently and your reasons for it."

Last edited by NeoPhono on Feb-12-2007 at 06:26

This guy disagrees..

quote:

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis. In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions: Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?• A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.• Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...• A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice. • Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?• A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.• Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?• A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.• Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...• A: ...I am right...• Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?• A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.• Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?• A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX To whoever its using Wikipedia to use as reliable data its scary.. Id go to Peer-review scientific articles. They may be very complex in language but you get a better idea there. I dont know why some people want their word against most if not all of the scintific community. blah I still dont know what is it that people don't understand about human behaviors effect on climate change.

Please see the References section on the Wikipedia links, most of them are sourced ;-) And for the last time I am not typing up similar information from my books either, because then you will discredit the authors and waste my time. Basically, if you dont believe it, there won't be enough information to convince you otherwise. I know time will tell, common sense prevails ...

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium See two posts up (my posts) for a link to a scholar report on this issue, referenced well including some Ph.D's. The truth is, there are Ph.Ds on both side of the issue. So what?

Consensus by scholarly association would be yeah the earths' ice caps are melting and we have colder winters and warmer summers or colder summers and warmer winters. The same would be for wikipedia. Consensus by stupidity if 100 people say something is fact in wikipedia, just like Stephen Colbert was alluding to.

quote:

I wouldn't take a bullet. Why? Because first of all, this is not going to happen.

I don't mean it right now. But when the time comes and the balance of nature lies in the extinction and extermination of man, would you sacrifice yourself? After all there are no humans in those tree hugging commercials if you actually watch them. Just happy bears, frogs, elephants but no humans yessiree boss.

quote:

And the issue is not LESS people, because people, our civilization especially do damage anyways, like the globally attributed extinction of horses in North America due to humans, according to some experts in book LAST HOURS OF ANCIENT SUNLIGHT.

The issue is not less people but the solution. Not one that I agree with, but just one the tree hugger types ignore.

Horses were not native to North America until the conquistadors brought them over. Some might argue that there were species of horses tens of thousands of years ago. But contemporary history shows us that the Spanish brought them over.

quote:

There's strong evidence that humans caused the extinction of mammoth as well. But thats of course debatable.

There's strong evidence that humans are making themselves extinct due to issues on preserving nature. But that is debatable as well.

quote:

I think overall humans are bad. if it meant that 99.9% of humans perished, leaving with permanently less than 500 million in total and stay that way, and if the damage to Earth done by us is restored, its well worth sacrifice, to take the bullet. That way I would know that something positive has been achieved.

Make up your friggin mind already. See previous post

quote:

The reason taking the bullet is worthless right now is because I know, I am certain that most of humans will be wiped out sometime in the future for any number of reasons: disease, climate change affecting food supplies/production, war, possibly nuclear annihilation with all the WMD's all of us have especially the western world, destruction of environment.

Enough with the flip-flopping "I don't know what brand of toothpaste to buy" nonsense.

But seriously why run around all confused when you can still beat them to the punch.

quote:

For me our current advancements for most part are meaningless. Watching TV 4 hours a day is a stupid accomplishment, when there's so much to learn, explore, love ... Its stagnant. People spend boring lives in their "boxes" (homes), doing daily repetitive chores, not caring or not doing anything about the important issues, surrounded and enchanted by our lifestyle that goes against nature and naturall ways in so many aspects ...

Yours is a mind ripe for brain washing. Oops too late.

quote:

Most people in developed world cant afford or dont want or dont have time for more than one child. Thats why our population is naturally dropping.

Just because you say so doesn't make it fact.

quote:

While in Africa, Asia, people live in terrible poor conditions, barely enough to survive ... earning a dollar a day in most parts, and yet decide to have 5,6,8,10 children. Where's the logic? Why create the conditions for the children's suffering?

By that logic you mean kill off any that are living now? They're useless eaters aren't they? Just like you.

quote:

Why should we be blamed for that? If you help one child, and then the family has even more children (as their population is booming), how much of a difference will your donation do?

Everyone that is for abortion or population control do not realize they're alive because their parents wanted them alive. If you had a say in your probable abortion you would scream out "hey, not me kill some other kid".

quote:

Education is much more important, invest in buying condoms for these people and invest in their education system would save many more children from suffering.

Thats' the whole point they've just educated you into that useless dribble on population control. They got you in their box and you don't even acknowledge it.

quote:

All life is important.

True, especially when looking out for number one; me.

quote:

I cant make a decision here, both deserve to live. Tree is life, child is life.

Simple: if that child was you wouldn't you want to live? But forget what I just said since you're more tied up in useless tripe on conservationism to actually be able to save your own life.

quote:

I hate when people think that trees are insignificant. Well, they say, cut down one tree no big deal. Equal logic is kill one child it wont make much difference either. Tree, however, is more important to the child and its surroundings than a baby because tree provides life, home, support for other life.

People live in houses not trees. Trees and humans have seeds. Hence biology in it's simplest of forms.

quote:

Baby, when grows up, takes advantage of tree's resources, often in a terrible negative way. If trees are gone, this will destroy us. On the other hand, with or without a child means nothing to the tree. The tree does what is has evolved to do. The child in the long run is more damaging than a tree.

If tree falls on a person how is the person doing harm if they sit in their house or car when struck by a tree? Don't pretend trees don't kill people. So does lightning, rain, snow and oceans for starters.

Nature adapts, look at the Exxon Valdez, Chernobyl and Mount Saint Helen's destructions of natural resources and natures' eventual comeback.

But they got suckers, err I mean people like you to believe the sky is falling.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I know time will tell, common sense prevails ...

I doubt you can be a standard bearer for common sense.

___________________

Last edited by ogvh5150 on Feb-13-2007 at 00:39

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Consensus by scholarly association would be yeah the earths' ice caps are melting and we have colder winters and warmer summers or colder summers and warmer winters. The same would be for wikipedia. Consensus by stupidity if 100 people say something is fact in wikipedia, just like Stephen Colbert was alluding to.

Is Al Gore, Thom Hartmann, Carl Sagan and others not experts in the field? How come you are all of a sudden the judge of who's right and who's wrong? Its debatable, and just because you stick to the bandwagon doesnt mean its right, history has shown this over and over. Many of the Wikipedia articles I've posted are linked and referenced, in some cases are books, reports, articles by scientists, historical data, etc..... Throw in these above authors for my support base of arguments, they've just made the wrong conclusions on the facts. But I guess these people are wrong, too? You are right, they are wrong! Eh?

quote:

I don't mean it right now. But when the time comes and the balance of nature lies in the extinction and extermination of man, would you sacrifice yourself? After all there are no humans in those tree hugging commercials if you actually watch them. Just happy bears, frogs, elephants but no humans yessiree boss.

Yeah, sure, if you're OK that this will come at the cost of many species of frogs/bears/elephants extinct because of direct human actions. I read few months ago an amazing article of how they found previously thought to be extinct species in Indonesia's western province, and how the area was not visited by humans before so the animals were not afraid of humans and allowed the scientists to pick them, pet them, carry them. Yeah, good luck with petting a wild animal like that of the same species in the wild, LOL. Notice all the "FIRSTS", because we have slaughtered the rest elsewhere ... now put in the perspective all the species of life we have extinguished all around the world, my friend:

http://news.independent.co.uk/envir...ticle343740.ece

"The first discovery made by the team, within hours of arrival, was of a bizarre, red-faced, wattled honeyeater that proved to be the first new species of bird discovered in New Guinea - which has a higher number of bird species for its size than anywhere else in the world - since 1939. The scientists also found the rare golden-fronted bowerbird, first identified from skins in 1825. Although Professor Diamond located their homeland in 1981, the expedition was able to photograph the bird in its metre-high "maypole" dance grounds, which the birds construct to attract mates. Male bowerbirds, believed to be the most highly evolved of all birds, build large and extravagant nests to attract females.

The most remarkable find was of a creature called Berlepsch's six-wired bird of paradise, named after the six spines on the top of its head, and thought "lost" to science. It had been previously identified only from the feathers of dead birds.

Dr Beehler, an expert on birds of paradise, which only live in northern Australia and New Guinea, said: "It was very exciting, when two of these birds, a male and a female, which no one has seen alive before ... came into the camp and the male displayed its plumage to the female in full view of the scientists."

Scientists also found more than 20 new species of frogs, four new butterflies, five new species of palm and many other plants yet to be classified, including what may be the world's largest rhododendron flower. Botanists on the team said many plants were completely unlike anything they had encountered before.

Tree kangaroos, which are endangered elsewhere in New Guinea, were numerous and the team found one species entirely new to the island. The golden-mantled tree kangaroo is considered the most beautiful but also the rarest of the jungle-dwelling marsupials. There were also other marsupials, such as wallabies and mammals that have been hunted almost to extinction elsewhere. And a rare spiny anteater, the long beaked echidna, about which little is known, allowed itself to be picked up by hand. Dr Beehler said: "What was amazing was the lack of wariness of all the animals. In the wild, all species tend to be shy of humans, but that is learnt behaviour because they have encountered mankind. In Foja they did not appear to mind our presence at all." [COMMENT: because we havent started killing them off there yet, as those that will survive will be the ones afraid of humans and they'll pass the genetic information to latter generations]

"This is a place with no roads or trails and never, so far as we know, visited by man ... This proves there are still places to be discovered that man has not touched."

quote:

The issue is not less people but the solution. Not one that I agree with, but just one the tree hugger types ignore.

You dont get it. Nature can live quite fine and prosperous without us, and yet we can't live without it. Put that in emphasis.

quote:

Horses were not native to North America until the conquistadors brought them over. Some might argue that there were species of horses tens of thousands of years ago. But contemporary history shows us that the Spanish brought them over.

Haha, wrong. There was horses before in North America. Strangely, everywhere humans migrated to, it has coincided with extinction of some large mammals.

Here's a professional paper on that:

http://biology.unm.edu/jhbrown/Publ...ceMastadons.pdf

quote:

There's strong evidence that humans are making themselves extinct due to issues on preserving nature. But that is debatable as well.

Ummmm ... lemme guess - the rising human population is the evidence for that?

quote:

Make up your friggin mind already. See previous post

I am sorry to sound rude, but I've said it many times, and aren't my posts long enough for you to understand my point, or you just skipped through the material? I stated clearly that there's a difference between climate change / global warming and human-induced extinctions of species, pollution bla bla. Issue of emissions cuts have little or nothing to do with extinctions or destruction of rainforest, for that matter - because most of the destruction is caused not because of climate change, but because of us and for the millionth time - no Kyoto Protocol will EVER EVER EVER stop the destruction of environment, pollution. Please pay attention.

quote:

Enough with the flip-flopping "I don't know what brand of toothpaste to buy" nonsense.

Bwahahaha ... Oh, my, you crazy Kyoto Protocol hippies make me sick. The environment is doomed because of such dumb policies.

quote:

But seriously why run around all confused when you can still beat them to the punch.

Great way to deal with issues at hand ... beat up the opponent and problems will be solved!

quote:

Yours is a mind ripe for brain washing. Oops too late.

Yours lack common sense. Tell me, what do you see at the end of the Kyoto Protocol? Stablilization of world temperatures? Reversal of environmental destruction? Decrease of human population? Less pollution emitted? You are so dead wrong, you are brainwashed, I am just using common sense.

quote:

Just because you say so doesn't make it fact.

Anything can be proven wrong nowadays, especially with lack of common sense and twisting of information. Whats at hand, the basic information, the history especially is nearly always ignored by humankind and thats why we're doomed. We will continue making the same dumb mistakes over and over again, as shown by history.

quote:

By that logic you mean kill off any that are living now? They're useless eaters aren't they? Just like you.

Yes, I am quite useless to the environment. We abuse it, we pillage it, we give nothing positive back. Thats a great contribution to the life cycle. The happy ride will end one way or another - at this pace an inevitable immediate and painful crash of civilization is at hand. Planning to fix problems in the future is a futile task, putting things off for later will not solve the problem.

quote:

Everyone that is for abortion or population control do not realize they're alive because their parents wanted them alive. If you had a say in your probable abortion you would scream out "hey, not me kill some other kid". Thats' the whole point they've just educated you into that useless dribble on population control. They got you in their box and you don't even acknowledge it.

Population control is a doomed strategy. Tell it to China, who passed the one-child policy in late 1970s, and look how badly its working in China. First of all, the population is on the rise. Secondly:

Wifeless future for China's men
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6346931.stm

Plus think of the murder of the many thousands of female babies in India and China ... yeah, and that solved what problems?

As for the birth control issue, I'd rather not discuss it here, its irrelevant to the topic.

Also, we are alive because nature led it happen, and our suicidal methods of focking up our only known place in the universe to sustain life is very pathetic. We are a pathetic, dumb, ignorant human race.

quote:

Simple: if that child was you wouldn't you want to live? But forget what I just said since you're more tied up in useless tripe on conservationism to actually be able to save your own life. People live in houses not trees. Trees and humans have seeds. Hence biology in it's simplest of forms. If tree falls on a person how is the person doing harm if they sit in their house or car when struck by a tree? Don't pretend trees don't kill people. So does lightning, rain, snow and oceans for starters. Nature adapts, look at the Exxon Valdez, Chernobyl and Mount Saint Helen's destructions of natural resources and natures' eventual comeback. But they got suckers, err I mean people like you to believe the sky is falling. I doubt you can be a standard bearer for common sense.

Hahaha .... well, well, nature doesnt adapt, its is forced to try harder to SURVIVE. Tell it to the concentration camp survivors - they couldn't adapt (many of them died, sadly), they did everything possible to survive as long as possible. Nature is TRYING TO SURVIVE, not trying to ADAPT - adaptation is not the explanation for the high number of extinct species - did those manage to adapt? ADAPT is a dumb word for those who are trying to justify the continuous plunder of resources by humans. Yeah, try to adapt when you're stripped of basic needs for survival - in case of many species its either fresh clean water (aquifers) or space for existence. A deer cannot adapt to roads, they dont understand traffic signals very well, their intelligence is not like ours.

Natural cycle has been broken, we are a threat to the stability of life on this planet. And we cant stop ourselves, the statistics speak for themselves. Lack of proper education is one of the reasons, ignorance is another of many others.

Plants make their own food, and we, other creatures NEED plants to live. Tell me this - who is more important - humans or plants? Noone needs humans - we are a menace not only to others but to ourselves, we cant establish an equilibrium with nature as all other life has. Yet everyone needs plants/autotrophs, every lifeform depends of them, even in oceans (plankton are considered to be the most important lifeform by many). Judging by our (human) actions of the last 6000+ years, pattern and statistics of what we've done, it would be very dumb and ignorant for me to believe that we will ever stop the damage. So I stick to common sense, to facts, statistics .. you rely on some global warming crap that will not solve anything because quite frankly its the trees that convert CO2 to oxygen than smokestacks. We should therefore stop cutting trees (not provided by Kyoto) because they cut down CO2 levels along with oceans. Cutting smokestacks will not decrease destruction of forests. And when people will realize that Kyoto has failed miserably, it will be too late. 6+ billion of people today will make much more damage to the environment than much smaller populations of previous generations, who inflicted heavy damage as well (see book COLLAPSE - How societies choose to fail or succeed) :EDIT:

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Last edited by Magnetonium on Feb-15-2007 at 00:53

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Is Al Gore, Thom Hartmann, Carl Sagan and others not experts in the field?

Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet. Psychotherapist Thom Hartmann I know nothing about, nor care since I don't listen to talk radio. Carl Sagan, since you like wikipedia, has redacted a few of his ideas and he was a pot smoker: Carl Sagan: toking astronomer. But this is normal behavior coming from people that are put on pedestals.

quote:

How come you are all of a sudden the judge of who's right and who's wrong? Its debatable, and just because you stick to the bandwagon doesnt mean its right, history has shown this over and over. Many of the Wikipedia articles I've posted are linked and referenced, in some cases are books, reports, articles by scientists, historical data, etc..... Throw in these above authors for my support base of arguments, they've just made the wrong conclusions on the facts. But I guess these people are wrong, too? You are right, they are wrong! Eh?

I believe you're wrong should I go against my instinct and join you? No I don't think so and you have a problem with that because you keep replying.

quote:

Yeah, sure, if you're OK that this will come at the cost of many species of frogs/bears/elephants extinct because of direct human actions.

Let's forget about over-population of animals that have to be put down in order to "balance nature". Yeah let's forget where we have to help nature by killing it before it overkills itself.

quote:

You dont get it. Nature can live quite fine and prosperous without us, and yet we can't live without it. Put that in emphasis.

If at times there is over-population of the animal species should we leave them alone so they can die off in larger numbers? see previous post

quote:

Haha, wrong. There was horses before in North America. Strangely, everywhere humans migrated to, it has coincided with extinction of some large mammals.

Contemporary:

1. Belonging to the same period of time: a fact documented by two contemporary sources.

What is the History of Wild Horses in North America?

Although horses evolved in North America there are many different opinions as to why no horses or burros existed on this continent at the time of European exploration. Spanish explorers reintroduced horses to North America beginning in the late fifteenth century and Native Americans helped spread horses throughout the Great Plains and the West. Until as recently as the mid-twentieth century, horses continued to be released onto public lands by the U.S. cavalry, farmers, ranchers, and miners.

Contemporary proof, in this case would be that there were no horses prior to the Spanish introducing them in NA. The theory (not fact) is that they where there millions of years ago. There is a difference.

quote:

Here's a professional paper on that: http://biology.unm.edu/jhbrown/Publ...ceMastadons.pdf

In cased you missed this: "Numerous anthropological and ecological hypotheses have been proposed to explain the
extinction of many large-bodied mammals at the terminal Pleistocene" or "Furthermore, as with the climate change hypothesis, the disease hypothesis does not easily explain the size selectivity of the extinction."

quote:

Ummmm ... lemme guess - the rising human population is the evidence for that?

You've missed the point of sarcasm.

quote:

I am sorry to sound rude, but I've said it many times, and aren't my posts long enough for you to understand my point, or you just skipped through the material? I stated clearly that there's a difference between climate change / global warming and human-induced extinctions of species, pollution bla bla. Issue of emissions cuts have little or nothing to do with extinctions or destruction of rainforest, for that matter - because most of the destruction is caused not because of climate change, but because of us and for the millionth time - no Kyoto Protocol will EVER EVER EVER stop the destruction of environment, pollution. Please pay attention.

Hypothesis:
Assumption, theory, guess, conjecture are synonyms.

quote:

Bwahahaha ... Oh, my, you crazy Kyoto Protocol hippies make me sick. The environment is doomed because of such dumb policies.

You make no sense with all your replies combined.

Last time I checked, plants need CO2 which the Kyoto Protocols state should be reduced. More CO2 would make plants thrive more. They produce Oxygen as waste and last time I check we need oxygen to live and in return we give off CO2. What don't you get if it's basic biology and a cycle of life? Plants need water too so more water means more plants and more plants need more water. It's so simple you don't see it. So I had to dumb it down for you.

quote:

Great way to deal with issues at hand ... beat up the opponent and problems will be solved!

Being that you must have skipped your English as a second language course let me explain:

Beat to the punch means to make the first decisive move.

quote:

Yours lack common sense. Tell me, what do you see at the end of the Kyoto Protocol? Stablilization of world temperatures? Reversal of environmental destruction? Decrease of human population? Less pollution emitted? You are so dead wrong, you are brainwashed, I am just using common sense.

I don't follow the protocol, nor will ever since I am not in treaty with the UN. If one is in treaty with another then they would have to honor the treaty and lose sovereignty to the signatory. But this topic is about global warming and not contracts.

quote:

Anything can be proven wrong nowadays, especially with lack of common sense and twisting of information. Whats at hand, the basic information, the history especially is nearly always ignored by humankind and thats why we're doomed. We will continue making the same dumb mistakes over and over again, as shown by history.

If only you heeded to your own words.

quote:

Yes, I am quite useless to the environment. We abuse it, we pillage it, we give nothing positive back. Thats a great contribution to the life cycle. The happy ride will end one way or another - at this pace an inevitable immediate and painful crash of civilization is at hand. Planning to fix problems in the future is a futile task, putting things off for later will not solve the problem.

I am looking out for number one, me. Sounds like deja vu.

quote:

Population control is a doomed strategy. Tell it to China, who passed the one-child policy in late 1970s, and look how badly its working in China. First of all, the population is on the rise. Secondly: Wifeless future for China's men http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6346931.stm Plus think of the murder of the many thousands of female babies in India and China ... yeah, and that solved what problems? As for the birth control issue, I'd rather not discuss it here, its irrelevant to the topic. Also, we are alive because nature led it happen, and our suicidal methods of focking up our only known place in the universe to sustain life is very pathetic. We are a pathetic, dumb, ignorant human race.

This is what I mean by you being an unknowing shill, you repeat what they want you to say. You're paraphrasing an old Pogo cartoon quote: "we have met the enemy and he is us".

quote:

Hahaha .... well, well, nature doesnt adapt, its is forced to try harder to SURVIVE. Tell it to the concentration camp survivors - they couldn't adapt (many of them died, sadly), they did everything possible to survive as long as possible. Nature is TRYING TO SURVIVE, not trying to ADAPT - adaptation is not the explanation for the high number of extinct species - did those manage to adapt? ADAPT is a dumb word for those who are trying to justify the continuous plunder of resources by humans. Yeah, try to adapt when you're stripped of basic needs for survival - in case of many species its either fresh clean water (aquifers) or space for existence. A deer cannot adapt to roads, they dont understand traffic signals very well, their intelligence is not like ours.

Adapt: Synonyms are adjust, conform, alter, change and assimilate.

Global warming/cooling or climate change is an theoretical ideology bordering on religion.

Although deer are stupid, they are a good food source.

quote:

Natural cycle has been broken, we are a threat to the stability of life on this planet. And we cant stop ourselves, the statistics speak for themselves. Lack of proper education is one of the reasons, ignorance is another of many others.

All that typing over a theory that your capitalizing on.

Try conceptualizing on the fact that you'll be dead one day and live for yourself now. You just keep running on about stuff in a confused state of mind.

What you should be concerned with is your family and food on the table. If not them and you want to do good, then the local homeless should be your next step.

Or become a big brother to some orphan or only child. Scratch that idea about the kid, you might mess up his mind with that tree hugger crap.

quote:

Plants make their own food, and we, other creatures NEED plants to live. Tell me this - who is more important - humans or plants? Noone needs humans - we are a menace not only to others but to ourselves, we cant establish an equilibrium with nature as all other life has. Yet everyone needs plants/autotrophs, every lifeform depends of them, even in oceans (plankton are considered to be the most important lifeform by many). Judging by our (human) actions of the last 6000+ years, pattern and statistics of what we've done, it would be very dumb and ignorant for me to believe that we will ever stop the damage. So I stick to common sense, to facts, statistics .. you rely on some global warming crap that will not solve anything because quite frankly its the trees that convert CO2 to oxygen than smokestacks. We should therefore stop cutting trees (not provided by Kyoto) because they cut down CO2 levels along with oceans. Cutting smokestacks will not decrease destruction of forests. And when people will realize that Kyoto has failed miserably, it will be too late. 6+ billion of people today will make much more damage to the environment than much smaller populations of previous generations, who inflicted heavy damage as well (see book COLLAPSE - How societies choose to fail or succeed)

To answer the first question: Humans, since they are harder to replace than plants. Women conceive (normally) one child at a time. Plants offer many spores or seeds that can take root.

Smokestacks, in your example, can be fitted with air cleansing technology to reclaim waste gasses and solids. If you've ever worked in a auto painting shop you would see water filtration of air for example.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet. Psychotherapist Thom Hartmann I know nothing about, nor care since I don't listen to talk radio. Carl Sagan, since you like wikipedia, has redacted a few of his ideas and he was a pot smoker: Carl Sagan: toking astronomer. But this is normal behavior coming from people that are put on pedestals. I believe you're wrong should I go against my instinct and join you? No I don't think so and you have a problem with that because you keep replying. Let's forget about over-population of animals that have to be put down in order to "balance nature". Yeah let's forget where we have to help nature by killing it before it overkills itself. If at times there is over-population of the animal species should we leave them alone so they can die off in larger numbers? see previous post Contemporary: 1. Belonging to the same period of time: a fact documented by two contemporary sources. What is the History of Wild Horses in North America? Although horses evolved in North America there are many different opinions as to why no horses or burros existed on this continent at the time of European exploration. Spanish explorers reintroduced horses to North America beginning in the late fifteenth century and Native Americans helped spread horses throughout the Great Plains and the West. Until as recently as the mid-twentieth century, horses continued to be released onto public lands by the U.S. cavalry, farmers, ranchers, and miners. Contemporary proof, in this case would be that there were no horses prior to the Spanish introducing them in NA. The theory (not fact) is that they where there millions of years ago. There is a difference. In cased you missed this: "Numerous anthropological and ecological hypotheses have been proposed to explain the extinction of many large-bodied mammals at the terminal Pleistocene" or "Furthermore, as with the climate change hypothesis, the disease hypothesis does not easily explain the size selectivity of the extinction." You've missed the point of sarcasm. Hypothesis: Assumption, theory, guess, conjecture are synonyms. You make no sense with all your replies combined. Last time I checked, plants need CO2 which the Kyoto Protocols state should be reduced. More CO2 would make plants thrive more. They produce Oxygen as waste and last time I check we need oxygen to live and in return we give off CO2. What don't you get if it's basic biology and a cycle of life? Plants need water too so more water means more plants and more plants need more water. It's so simple you don't see it. So I had to dumb it down for you. Being that you must have skipped your English as a second language course let me explain: Beat to the punch means to make the first decisive move. I don't follow the protocol, nor will ever since I am not in treaty with the UN. If one is in treaty with another then they would have to honor the treaty and lose sovereignty to the signatory. But this topic is about global warming and not contracts. If only you heeded to your own words. I am looking out for number one, me. Sounds like deja vu. This is what I mean by you being an unknowing shill, you repeat what they want you to say. You're paraphrasing an old Pogo cartoon quote: "we have met the enemy and he is us". Adapt: Synonyms are adjust, conform, alter, change and assimilate. Global warming/cooling or climate change is an theoretical ideology bordering on religion. Although deer are stupid, they are a good food source. All that typing over a theory that your capitalizing on. Try conceptualizing on the fact that you'll be dead one day and live for yourself now. You just keep running on about stuff in a confused state of mind. What you should be concerned with is your family and food on the table. If not them and you want to do good, then the local homeless should be your next step. Or become a big brother to some orphan or only child. Scratch that idea about the kid, you might mess up his mind with that tree hugger crap. To answer the first question: Humans, since they are harder to replace than plants. Women conceive (normally) one child at a time. Plants offer many spores or seeds that can take root. Smokestacks, in your example, can be fitted with air cleansing technology to reclaim waste gasses and solids. If you've ever worked in a auto painting shop you would see water filtration of air for example.

Anyhow, basically you believe Kyoto protocol will stop the environmental damage, allright so be it. But I wont fall for it. And just because Carl Sagan smoked pot, doesnt mean he doesnt have credibility thats just stupid. There are no guidelines saying "well, you smoked pot when you were young, so you have no credibility" bwah, thats so lame.

My point is not about women conceiving one child at a time, but the uses of plants versus humans. We only destroy, plants give life and diversification. We give life to ourselves to destroy other life. We havent done anything constructive to the environment. If you cut down 1,000,000 trees and plant back 100,000 - thats not constructive. More population requires more resources. More trees, rainforests are cut down, pollution is vastly dumped into the environment, the damage process is neverending - and all that Kyoto does is cut emissions? Whats that going to achieve?

I said it a billion times on this thread that CO2 IS VERY GOOD (you missed mym earllier points, HAAHAHAHAHA), and Kyoto is bad because it is trying to cut it down. Its you who thinks I am only helping your points, THIS IS my point. I dont care aboout the misery of humankind. Quite frankly, I'll give money to rebuild nature than rebuild our destructive character. Human misery means nothing to me considering how much misery WE, HUMANS, have inflicted on nature. I am not singling anyone out. Just because I didnt cut any trees doesnt mean I am innocent, as both you, me, others have directly been responsible by buying the products of this destruction. You care about homeless people - well, when our food production will suffer a blow from the developing natural calamities, we'll see about who's you'll care about. OH WAIT, you already said you care about YOURSELF first, and thats what people do. They dont give a flying fock about no nature problem. Me first, whatever else is later. And thats my whole point.

We are not productive. We are opposite, we have nothing to give, other than our own so-called "progress", which is to build a class system in which a small number of people live significantly wealthier than majority of others. We are destroying it. We are setting up our own demise. You claim that deer overcrowding is bad, well, in that link, here's what they said:

"All state wildlife biologists have a target goal of how many deer per square mile they would like to see in their woods."

So basically overpopulation is based on their own "numbers". Are you the judge to say that billion+ year old process of evolution is primitive compared to our own ideals and programs to decide what's right and wrong? Nature has a balance, populations rise and drop. Same thing will happen to us. Except when deer populations fall after they reach the peak, they dont bring the rest of the ecosystem down with them, in fact the opposite. We are falling, and bringing the environment down with us. We care about OUR OWN survival much more than of nature. We have the power to destroy nature, to cut down the forests, squeeze life out of it. Do deers have that power? Fuck nature, eh? Whatever it takes for 6.5 billion people to survive, eh, whatever the costs - everyone cares about their family. Well, fock you if you think your family deserves survival and someone else's doesnt. You have an ignorant view - MY family, ME ME ME deserves this, I am the king. Thats the source of the problems, human ignorance. AND NOTHING, NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING will reverse that with YOUR views. Kyoto protocol is a doomed policy. It will not soolve anything other than win political elections and make some crazy Jap's happy.

The whole Kyoto protocol is done to protect environment, right? To cut down emissions to protect environment, so that we can coontinue plundering nature at current pace.

Kyoto protocol has no provisions for protection of environment, none, other than greenhouse emissions which is not the problem. Chlorine does more damage to environment than greenhouse emissions because one particle of chlorine can DESTROY up to 100,000 particles of ozone, because it is toxic not only to own bodies, but to the environment. And we use chlorine heavily. We are poisoning ourselves, others, nature, everything. They're already talking about dumping garbage and waste in space, LOL. This planet is slowly turning into a big garbage dump. Fuck humanity. I go on trails often and see garbage everywhere. People dont give a shit.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I said it a billion times on this thread that CO2 IS VERY GOOD (you missed mym earllier points, HAAHAHAHAHA), and Kyoto is bad because it is trying to cut it down. Its you who thinks I am only helping your points, THIS IS my point. I dont care aboout the misery of humankind. Quite frankly, I'll give money to rebuild nature than rebuild our destructive character. Human misery means nothing to me considering how much misery WE, HUMANS, have inflicted on nature. I am not singling anyone out. Just because I didnt cut any trees doesnt mean I am innocent, as both you, me, others have directly been responsible by buying the products of this destruction. You care about homeless people - well, when our food production will suffer a blow from the developing natural calamities, we'll see about who's you'll care about. OH WAIT, you already said you care about YOURSELF first, and thats what people do. They dont give a flying fock about no nature problem. Me first, whatever else is later. And thats my whole point.

It is clear that you don't understand the basics of why increasing CO2 emissions the way humans have been is CATASTROPHIC for plants as much as humans, if not moreso.

Increases in "greenhouse gasses" cause changes in climate that effect weather patterns, making rainfall less plentiful in places it was once relied upon. Sure, plants need CO2, but they also need vast amounts of water, and as the earth gets warmer, the amount of fresh water available to those plants decreases, and thus the plants cannot process the CO2.

Too much of anything is dangerous, especially in a delicate system such as climate. Take oxygen and breathing for instance. Oxygen is highly corrosive. Sure we need it to breathe, but our lungs can only handle it at low pressures and usually take it in mixed with other gases. Even at standard sea-level pressures, pure oxygen can severely damage the human body, even cause death. Just think about what too much CO2 might do to a plant if what "is good for humans" can actually kill us.

(More detail on my oxygen commentsL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity)


MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

Magnetonium, you need to read and understand Blackman's law re: CO2 and plants.

I won't get into pissing match over this as its basic biology.
good gawd dude its class 101, you do understand the concept of a chain?
every link depends on each and every link in the chain. change just one link...


More CO2 = greater need for water/nutrients.

Last edited by Dale Gribble on Feb-15-2007 at 17:03

quote:

Originally posted by Dale Gribble Magnetonium, you need to read and understand Blackman's law re: CO2 and plants. I won't get into pissing match over this as its basic biology. good gawd dude its class 101, you do understand the concept of a chain? every link depends on each and every link in the chain. change just one link... More CO2 = greater need for water/nutrients.

More CO2 - more oxygen because plants convert CO2 to oxygen. Higher levels of CO2 result in explosion of life, because CO2 is fuel for plants to live, their food. Life was abundant, diverse before dinosaurs were extinguished, because of abundance of CO2. Even spiders, bugs, trees WERE GINANTIC - because there was so much food for plants and animals ...

However, today there are less trees every day, so not enough CO2 converters to do the job. CO2 makes up ONLY 0.4 percent of atmosphere. Is that too much? This number WILL DECREASE and has been decreasing over the hundreds of thousands of years up until recently, because plants store carbon in the ground, not all is released back for the cycle - there's a reason why millions of years ago there was a lot more CO2 in atmosphere and today, over the long period of time it is a small number now. Nitrogen is increasing in the atmosphere as a result, and oxygen is decreasing. Some scientists estimate that anywhere from 20 million years from now the drastically low levels of CO2 and dropping levels of oxygen will make our atmosphere unsustainable to life.

If you are saying that high levels of CO2 is poisinous to life, what about the Kambrian explosion (sorry for bad spelling), what about the dinosaur era? There were higher amounts of BOTH CO2 AND oxygen it atmosphere. Plants loved, animals loved it because there was lots of plants. Cut off 0.4 percent of C02 to less and we'll see who will suffer.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture