Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- utopian3
CLIMATE CHANGE IS KILLING US RIGHT NOW
- inteliboy0
mother: clean your room
deathboy: [insert 2 page matter of fact opinion on why it's inevitable his room dirty, part of life, solar flares will destroy their house anyway and therefore should not bother cleaning it up]- haha clean ill clean my room but mother i dont think i can clean the entire worlddeathboy
- come one only one boy can dust and vacuum so muchdeathboy
- and if that window stays open with the wind im afraid i cant keep up with all of the dirtdeathboy
- but ill try. and if you force me to work nonstop cleaning the symptoms of a problem i think ill suffer more than i need toodeathboy
- lowimpakt0
biznutty - I did a brief check on that team of "scientists"
H. Leighton Steward is the spokesman for Plants Need CO2 and the registrant of their website. According to its corporate Certificate of Formation[1], Steward is a director at EOG Resources, an oil and gas company formerly known as Enron Oil and Gas Company, where he earned $617,151 in 2008. Steward also serves as an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute. [2]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index…
Tobacco Industry Contractor
In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[13]
Dr. Fred Singer
In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funded by the Tobacco Institute over a risk assessment on environmental tobacco smoke. [14] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI.[15]In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top Five Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top Five Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top Five Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[17]
- and another one comes crashing down to the ground... don't expect a response lowimpakt.DrBombay
- Khurram0
raf said: "CFL... produce ugly-coloured, unhealthy type of light (attributed to many medical conditions). "
Eh, care to elaborate?
- version30
cien
- Khurram0
raf said: "b. produces unhealthy, unnatural type of light,
c. is only more efficient under certain conditions?"more elaboration on such wild statements, please.
- If you can't even be bothered to do your own research then you are not worthy of any respect in a debateset
- I've heard a lot about CFLs, never that they can be less efficient than incandescent.joeth
- They are more efficient in long intervals, but take more energy when starting up, up to 40 minutes.raf
- ie. in a bathroom: you come in, light on, take a dump, light off – this light bulb took more power than incandescentraf
- set, shhhhh! grown-ups are talking.Khurram
- designbot0
Every time this debate comes up....the Global Warming sensationalists love to come out an hurl insults without actually addressing anything.....awesome.
- Because it's all been said so many times before. As always, it's 'scientists' vs. religionists. There is no right or wrong.Nairn
- Well, except for you guys - you're wrong.Nairn
- indeed. Because it ties in too closely with their under girding worldview.teleos
- Amazing. Thanks for proving humanities inherent propensity for self delusion.TheBlueOne
- Anyway, if you insist - there's a link from my link to refute your position - http://environment.n…Nairn
- Has nothing to do with science vs. religion. There are many people including scientists who don't believe it's happening.designbot
- not really , but whatever designbot.spifflink
- teleos0
"Environmentalism has replaced Socialism as the new religion of the secularist"
- Khurram0
lowimpakt: "no raf - you presented a conspiracy theory - i questioned the logic behind it so now it is up to you to defend and prove it."
Ya rafal of 2009 seems to have been seduced by an intricate webs of conspiracy theories mounted on conspiracy theories. Don't know how he can keep them all in his head without inducing some sort of paradoxical melt-down.
- teleos0
Nairn, I'm afraid it's scientists vs. scientists.
Unless these NASA folks who deny AGW have some secret theocratic agenda.
- raf0
It is not true that 90+% of scientists support Global Warming Theory.
Many of those who do, do it because it is a political issue, rather than a scientific one.
Being a scientist, can you get a grant working to prove the theory right? Of course.
Can you get one to prove it wrong? Highly unlikely. It would be politically incorrect. There's no money in disagreeing with the theory, there are high political risks for your career though.Scientist's salaries, mortgages, careers depend on their approach.
That's why they have to say shit like:"the long-term trend in global temperatures [..] according to the Met office data, is clearly up."
How do they know that we're not past the peak if temperatures keep lowering year by year for over a decade? They have to repeat what they have been preaching and I bet a lot of them pray for a year of warming numbers.
- DrBombay0
If it were all profit motivated, wouldn't a lightbulb with a tenth of the lifespan actually be the better deal for the manufacturer? They are all made by GE, right?
- deathboy0
its good to practice the 3 Rs and be responsible for waste and try to minimize impact on the environment. its self serving and people should be concious of it.
And i see the biggest human contributing factor to human environmental changes is increased population. After all if the human factor is the problem than the human is the problem. Hard to deny that. So let those who feel strongly about it start calling for population control instead of regulation. Let those who love the environment enough decide to stop reproducing. Regulation to curb human populations without creating suffering for some is a fallacy. Im curious if the tune would change. Id like to see the people moral and mental gymnastics in that feat.
Of course the quagmire in controlling birth rates is dillution of the gene pools based on man law and not natural law. Who reproduces and liberties of individuals. I wont make that call but nor do i make the call for mans law to magically control climate change. its the catch22 protaginists of human effect always ignore. If u believe it and u have a kid what is going to stop an average 70 years of pollution from that one kid. Do you think there is some sort of philosopher stone that will wipe the slate clean without a price.
I say let ignorance play its part but not in the legal system. Hate to say it but so far survival of the fittest has worked. Screw security of the cowards and their protectionsim. Be personally responsible and vote with every dollar you spend. Do what benefits you including the small scale recycling stuff. Try not to harm others out of your fear. And make the best life you can for yourself knowing you have no security. It is what it is.
Just seems like the 1% making people jump at ghosts. Funny im curious how much of the 1% is based in washington DC. I read recently that washington DC has surpassed silicon valley as the wealthiest place. Or who knows maybe theyre the 10% stealing the wealth of 1% who knows.
Either way ill continue my own conservational environemnt stuff. and you guys bitch about it and willfully ignore what u do that supports what u hate. at least im honest about what i do.
- Ianbolton0
Lowimpakt: Point taken. I just get frustrated when we see religious nutcases piping up about creation and how this is gods way. Then we see people banging on about this whole environment thing as a scare mongering conspiracy theory. Then there's the people who think "what's the point?" there's no evidence, and there's nothing we can do about it anyway.
I just find doing something positive makes me feel better. Surprising innit!?
