|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Dec 30th, 2003 10:20 PM | ||
| FartinMowler |
Quote:
|
|
| Dec 30th, 2003 10:20 PM | ||
| Helm | Chimp is on the right track. We're not a functional part of nature anymore, and we haven't been such theoretically since made our first weapon. We're the only animal that found it's way at the top of the food-chain due to increasingly effective use of our intellect. We have a reactionary relationship with nature instead of a interactive one. | |
| Dec 30th, 2003 07:30 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | Nature encompasses everything. It is far more than just a woodland forest. | |
| Dec 30th, 2003 05:33 PM | ||
| AChimp | Actually, I think it can be argued that we aren't technically part of nature anymore since we're never exposed to it and have the technology to kick its ass. | |
| Dec 30th, 2003 04:06 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | It's about as asinine as saying Natural Environmental Systems. Humans are a part of nature, after all. | |
| Dec 30th, 2003 10:39 AM | ||
| mburbank | Natural Economic Systems. Woosh. Hooo-boy. | |
| Dec 30th, 2003 10:03 AM | ||
| MatthewCleveland | I've read a few books on the matter, but now that I've gone back and looked the only one I still have on me is "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. I've read several articles but I don't keep track of them. However no one could really be sure what could happen there are way too many factors, Earth's "wobbles", Messinian Salinity Crisis, and so many other factors we haven't even discovered. The point is e jsut don't know and can't know so we need to stop playing with it and conserve. | |
| Dec 29th, 2003 05:20 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | Where are you getting your info? | |
| Dec 29th, 2003 05:11 PM | ||
| kellychaos | How about looking about the moral idea of overconsumption in general? There are children in Africa with no Christmas lights and they get along just fine ... granted, some of them are muslim but that's beside the point. | |
| Dec 29th, 2003 03:04 PM | ||
| MatthewCleveland |
Global Warming *IS* Catacylasmic I am new to these boards but I jsut read this post and was infuriated. Glabal warming is a cataclysmic device that will plummit us into a *ice age*. A 5 degree increase in global tempetures along with causing hte West Antartic Ice Sheet to plummit into the ocean (Pieces of it are already breaking awya at alarming rates) but it will increase evaporation dramaticly. While in the short run this will create a a few century's of tropical paradise, the increas ien cload cover will reflect solar radiation. This will send out tempetures further downwards. Once we past a critical point in whihc the global thermometer is balanced at, cool summers will not be able to melt away the winter's ice and snow. This increase in snow and ice over the northern Eurasian and North American continents will (like the cloud cover) reflect solar radiation. This will only cause us to have cooler summers harder snow falla nd more ice coverage. The world's tempature is an extremely delicate thing, and changes are sure to plummit us into ice ages like has happened time and time again in the Earth's history. However one must take what I said with a grain of salt, these effects like all geological and meteological process takes centuries, mellenia, but none the less if this process of industrial pollution continues we are increasing the chances of a global extinction that will wipe out most land life. Global wamring *IS* bad..... If you have anyhting to say feel free to IM or e-mail me. Matthew Cleveland |
|
| Dec 25th, 2003 02:52 PM | ||
| mburbank |
I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids. |
|
| Dec 24th, 2003 04:17 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
I feel the same way about altering the planet's natural economic systems just because the effects are convienent. Seriously, you overestimate how bad a global rise in climate is. No apocalyptic melting of all the icecaps would occur; possibly some melting, but not that much. Futhermore, the effects on animal reproduction would be minimal; we are talking about something like a 5 degree F change here. You also need to consider the carbon fertilization effect. |
|
| Dec 24th, 2003 03:14 PM | ||
| camacazio | That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. How on earth is it a better world to completely alter the planet's biological systems if it just means us being a little warmer? It completely fails to touch on the other side, i.e. how it would alter agricultural and animal growth/reproduction patterns or the melting of polar caps. I mean, it made way more sense to argue whether global warming will happen or not--this article takes the dumbest stand I could possibly imagine on the issue, saying that it's okay to be lazy uncaring slobs because the consequences are convenient. | |
| Dec 24th, 2003 11:50 AM | ||
| Emu |
Quote:
|
|
| Dec 24th, 2003 10:32 AM | ||
| Zhukov |
My next door neighbours dog died from overheating! I'm not wearing a shit! EDIT: Well I'm not. But I meant to say shirt. Sometimes my keyboard misses letters and I have to go back and fill them in... |
|
| Dec 24th, 2003 09:25 AM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Global Warming: a POSITIVE??? This article touches on more than just that concept, but it raises the point: Three Cheers for Holiday Lights by Rob Bradley Rob Bradley is president of the Institute for Energy Research in Houston, an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute, and author of Climate Alarmism Reconsidered (Institute of Economic Affairs, 2003). Environmental activists usually critical of electrified America must have mixed emotions this time of the year. Though it is a season of good cheer and goodwill toward all, it is also a time of conspicuous energy consumption. To many people, America the Beautiful is at her best in December when so much of the nation is illuminated by billions of tiny stringed light bulbs. Holiday lighting is a great social offering -- a positive externality, in the jargon of economics -- given by many to all. While a few energy doomsayers such as Paul Ehrlich rile against "garish commercial Christmas displays," few of today's headline grabbers (Arianna Huffington, where are you?) have attempted to stir up debate over the generator-hours devoted to making the season glow. Indeed, holiday lighting seems a dazzling exception to the activists' goal of reducing discretionary energy usage. But if holiday energy guzzling can be overlooked, why not excuse outdoor heating and cooling, one-switch centralized lighting, and instant-on appliances that "leak" electricity, not to mention SUVs? Prancing around to turn on individual lights or waiting for the photocopier to warm up wastes the scarcest and one truly depleting resource: A person's time. Known world oil reserves are more than 20 times greater now than they were when record keeping began in the 1940s; world gas reserves are almost four times greater than they were in the 1960s; world coal reserves have risen fourfold since 1950. Transient developments, often political, can drive supplies down and prices up, but the raw mineral resource base is abundant -- and expanding in economic terms thanks to an inexhaustible supply of human ingenuity and exploratory capital. Record energy consumption has been accompanied by improving air quality. Urban air quality is a third better today than in 1970. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that air emissions of the criteria pollutants declined by 25 percent, as energy usage increased by 150 percent. Further air emission reductions are expected, but they will not be accomplished by forcing higher prices or inconvenience on consumers. Future reductions will be accomplished with market incentives, technological improvement, and regulation based on sound science, not alarmism. Should good citizens think twice about holiday lighting, given global warming and other suspected climate changes supposedly caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide? Hardly. A moderately warmer, wetter world, whether natural or anthropogenic, such as experienced in the 20th century, is a better world. Carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels "greens" the biosphere through the well-documented carbon fertilization effect. But most importantly, the wealth created from affordable, plentiful energy provides the primary means for societies to improve the environment. In the final analysis, wealth produces environmental health, which explains why increasing energy usage and environmental improvement have gone hand in hand in the Western world. There is much to be thankful for this holiday season with our energy economy. But thoughts about the less fortunate should be with us, too. The World Energy Council estimates that 1.6 billion people lack electricity for lighting, heating, cooling, or cooking. A Christmas tree for us is likely to be firewood for those living in energy poverty. For fully a fourth of the world's population, there could be no greater holiday gift than affordable electricity, explaining why the developing world has flatly rejected proposals from environmental elites to forsake future energy usage in the quixotic quest to "stabilize climate." Energy consumption is good -- for comfort, convenience, and even celebration. May one and all in good conscience enliven this holiday season with lights aplenty. With sources of conventional fuels steadily expanding and energy technologies rapidly advancing, Americans can look forward to even more energetic celebrations and shared goodwill in the holiday seasons ahead. |
|
