/dev/null Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 It was colder yesterday! But it's going to be warmer tomorrow. Ergo, Global Warming
Deranged Rhino Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 It's !@#$ing cold every day! Isn't that just Canada?
/dev/null Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Isn't that just Canada? It's cold in Canada = Climate Change It's warm in Canada = Global Warming It aint eazy being cheezy Forward!
meazza Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Isn't that just Canada? Yes quite. In other news I just finished building my new home. You're welcome to drop by have a beer.
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Yes quite. In other news I just finished building my new home. You're welcome to drop by have a beer. That's awesome.
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Yes quite. In other news I just finished building my new home. You're welcome to drop by have a beer. Nice house. And congratulations on your new career as James Bond Villain.
meazza Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 That's awesome. Don't congratulate me. Someone else made this happen.
Nanker Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 But is it cold in that house, or is the beer warm?
meazza Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 But is it cold in that house, or is the beer warm? The naked ladies keep me warm.
Dorkington Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 Climate change isn't a debate so much as an incomplete theory. And it's likely to always be an incomplete theory, simply because the earth's climate is so damned complex. And because of that, it should be up for debate...all the better to investigate it. No one ever learned anything by assuming they were right. We dump mass quantities of pollutants into the air, water, and soil, while also destroying forests left and right. There's no question that we have an effect on the environment and climate imo. I'll give you that it may be exaggerating an already existing cycle, but still, we're doing some pretty hefty damage to resources we depend on. To me it seems like common sense, and we should do better to approach the future with caution. We need cleaner energy. We need to continue the process of recycling. We need to be doing more planting to replace what we cut. And that's world wide, not just here in the US. These extreme weather patterns will probably just get worse, the more damage we do. And if, let's say, the climate change folks are wrong, at the very least it'll help maintain resources that we do depend on. Though, I know I'm seen as a liberal loon here, so I probably should just shut up.
Alaska Darin Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 We dump mass quantities of pollutants into the air, water, and soil, while also destroying forests left and right. There's no question that we have an effect on the environment and climate imo. I'll give you that it may be exaggerating an already existing cycle, but still, we're doing some pretty hefty damage to resources we depend on. To me it seems like common sense, and we should do better to approach the future with caution. We need cleaner energy. We need to continue the process of recycling. We need to be doing more planting to replace what we cut. And that's world wide, not just here in the US. These extreme weather patterns will probably just get worse, the more damage we do. And if, let's say, the climate change folks are wrong, at the very least it'll help maintain resources that we do depend on. Though, I know I'm seen as a liberal loon here, so I probably should just shut up. The best answer to fixing all the environmental problems is carbon credits...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) We dump mass quantities of pollutants into the air, water, and soil, while also destroying forests left and right. There's no question that we have an effect on the environment and climate imo. I'll give you that it may be exaggerating an already existing cycle, but still, we're doing some pretty hefty damage to resources we depend on. To me it seems like common sense, and we should do better to approach the future with caution. We need cleaner energy. We need to continue the process of recycling. We need to be doing more planting to replace what we cut. And that's world wide, not just here in the US. These extreme weather patterns will probably just get worse, the more damage we do. And if, let's say, the climate change folks are wrong, at the very least it'll help maintain resources that we do depend on. Though, I know I'm seen as a liberal loon here, so I probably should just shut up. Why? See the biggest...either honest misconception, or intentional canard, the left has is that somehow the right doesn't want clean water, air, etc. Who wants cancer water? Not me. Do I not understand the concept that pouring chemicals into water makes cancer water? Of course I do. I do my own thinking, every day, for a living. I do not require assistance from the left. The false choice that the left has been operating on for 10 years: Either you accept as gospel everything we say, even when your own common sense prevents it, or you don't care about the environment! That is precisely why I liken these people to Scientologists, hence, environtologists. Both use the exact same tactics. IF you cronfront either about some blatantly idiotic part of their ethos? Both will come at you personally, and call you evil/ a criminal/ etc. People who are secure in their argument don't need to do that. But, when you are dealing with a cult mentality, which we most certanly ARE(and I have proven it countless times here) in the case of both Scientology and Global Warming? You always see the same BEHAVIOR. Behavior. That's what I've observed. We can talk about computer models forever. It's the behavior that makes it so obvious to me that this is a scam. EDIT: On a medium level at least. I'm sure ther are some honest brokers, but they are also likely to be naive brokers. Edited November 24, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
Dorkington Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I read your post twice, and still didn't get your point. No where did I suggest that "the right" doesn't want clean water, etc. At worst, there are some very powerful capitalist forces that don't care one way or the other, but only care about profits, and those powerful forces line the pockets of our politicians.
3rdnlng Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I read your post twice, and still didn't get your point. No where did I suggest that "the right" doesn't want clean water, etc. At worst, there are some very powerful capitalist forces that don't care one way or the other, but only care about profits, and those powerful forces line the pockets of our politicians. You mean like Warren Buffett?
Azalin Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 I read your post twice, and still didn't get your point. No where did I suggest that "the right" doesn't want clean water, etc. At worst, there are some very powerful capitalist forces that don't care one way or the other, but only care about profits, and those powerful forces line the pockets of our politicians. You say that 'capitalist forces' don't care about environmental issues and instead 'only about profits'. Are we to assume that you mean Apple and Microsoft are polluting our air and water? That they're deforesting the land, and that, as 3rd asks, Warren Buffett is lining his pockets and paying off politicians? Or could it be that you're basing your argument on a stereotype? The stereotypical 'capitalist' - the one concerned with profits above all - is a character whose association with the American right has been a voodoo doll for the left since the 60's, so when you base your opinions on such, you're buying into a mindset deliberately manufactured by people who detest free market economics and limited government.
Dorkington Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 You mean like Warren Buffett? Yup. You say that 'capitalist forces' don't care about environmental issues and instead 'only about profits'. Are we to assume that you mean Apple and Microsoft are polluting our air and water? That they're deforesting the land, and that, as 3rd asks, Warren Buffett is lining his pockets and paying off politicians? Or could it be that you're basing your argument on a stereotype? The stereotypical 'capitalist' - the one concerned with profits above all - is a character whose association with the American right has been a voodoo doll for the left since the 60's, so when you base your opinions on such, you're buying into a mindset deliberately manufactured by people who detest free market economics and limited government. Electronic manufacturers are big pollutants. The idea is to find way to do less harm, while still advancing technology. Reasonable regulations by governments have helped a bit, along with public pressure, from what I can tell.
Azalin Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 Electronic manufacturers are big pollutants. The idea is to find way to do less harm, while still advancing technology. Reasonable regulations by governments have helped a bit, along with public pressure, from what I can tell. if we have had a measurable degree of success with reasonable regulations and pressure from the public, what would you say is the next, necessary step?
Dorkington Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) if we have had a measurable degree of success with reasonable regulations and pressure from the public, what would you say is the next, necessary step? To maintain that across other industries as well. But some industries are more entrenched than others. And more importantly, for that to become the norm in countries that are transitioning from developing to developed (China/India/so on). Edited November 24, 2014 by Dorkington
Azalin Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 To maintain that across other industries as well. But some industries are more entrenched than others. And more importantly, for that to become the norm in countries that are transitioning from developing to developed (China/India/so on). What industries do we have that don't have adequate regulation, and how would you propose to change such policies in Asia?
Recommended Posts