Author Topic: Top RUSSIAN Natural. (Read 13832 times)

Paul Allen · « **Reply #50 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:47:38 AM »

"We imagine that we live in an age of reason, and global warming alarm is dressed up as science; but it's not science, it's propaganda."
Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute, Paris.

"We can't say that CO2 will drive climate; it certainly never did in the past."
Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

"The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries."
Patrick Moore, Co-founder of Greenpeace.

wisconsinBB · « **Reply #51 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:48:37 AM »

Quote from: MisterMagoo on October 18, 2007, 10:42:48 AM

let me ask you this, i think it's a reasonable question:

looking at things from a "prisoner's dilemma" perspective, we see that either there is or isn't global warming and we either do or don't do something about it (which is to simplify things, ignoring whether it's man-caused or whether we're technically capable of doing anything).

so we have four situations, each comes with a result/consequence.

global warming is real, we do something about it - we save the planet, though it's a strain on the economy and requires some sacrifice

global warming is real, we do nothing about it - the planet gets decimated and all those terrible things happen that gore warned about (maybe not to that extent).

global warming isn't real, we do something about it - planet doesn't need saved, and we make economic sacrifices for no good reason.

global warming isn't real, we do nothing about it - status quo.

i want you to look at those four options. realize that the 1st and 3rd can be paired up, as well as the 2nd and 4th. even if we don't know for sure whether it's real, we can take a look at the potential consequences. compare.

no action - either the status quo, or serious destruction of the planet.

action - either an unnecessary economic sacrifice, or a necessary sacrifice because it saved the planet.

in the former case, the potential benefit is pretty minimal and the potential consequence is monumental. in the latter, the potential benefit is monumental and the potential consequence is pretty minimal.

i think it's obvious which side i'd choose to err on, how about you?

Ok, my opinion of global warming is up in the air right now, but the actions being taken to stop global warming are good for the enviroment regardless. So even if global warming were a complete hoax, I think the actions being taken to combat it are great because they are cleaning up the earth. I guess I just don't believe Gore is some global warming white knight, I personally believe that he is on a business venture which undoubtedly is making him lots and lots of money.

Paul Allen · « **Reply #52 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:50:23 AM »

link to the graph:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/nh_temp2.gif

the graph shows the source they got it from.

for those of you not graph savvy, it shows temperature variance of the last 2000 years. as you can see, it varies greatly.

one of the main factors attributed to global warming is the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. human emission of those gasses is .28%, while the other 99.72 is from natural emissions? do you need graphs on that too?

wisconsinBB · « **Reply #53 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:51:25 AM »

Quote from: Paul Allen on October 18, 2007, 10:50:23 AM

link to the graph:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/nh_temp2.gif

the graph shows the source they got it from.

for those of you not graph savvy, it shows temperature variance of the last 2000 years. as you can see, it varies greatly.

one of the main factors attributed to global warming is the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. human emission of those gasses is .28%, while the other 99.72 is from natural emissions? do you need graphs on that too?

I've read similar studies saying that nature is resonsible for an overwhelming majority of CO2.

MisterMagoo · « **Reply #54 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:51:52 AM »

Quote from: wisconsinBB on October 18, 2007, 10:48:37 AM

Ok, my opinion of global warming is up in the air right now, but the actions being taken to stop global warming are good for the enviroment regardless. So even if global warming were a complete hoax, I think the actions being taken to combat it are great because they are cleaning up the earth. I guess I just don't believe Gore is some global warming white knight, I personally believe that he is on a business venture which undoubtedly is making him lots and lots of money.

fair enough.

no doubt he's making a career out of it, but i do believe he's doing it because he truly cares about the environment. he was writing books back in the 1980s, i'm sure he could have made a lot more money doing something else.

The_Leafy_Bug · « **Reply #55 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:52:07 AM »

Quote from: Paul Allen on October 18, 2007, 10:47:38 AM

"We imagine that we live in an age of reason, and global warming alarm is dressed up as science; but it's not science, it's propaganda."
Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute, Paris.

"We can't say that CO2 will drive climate; it certainly never did in the past."
Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

"The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries."
Patrick Moore, Co-founder of Greenpeace.

Are you a moron? Just look at China for example. People aren't moving to the cities because of jobs. They are moving because they country side is so badly polluted they can't live there and by them moving to the city they put more strain on local water supply and add to air pollution.

The_Leafy_Bug · « **Reply #56 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:53:01 AM »

Hell... look at onlyme. He contributes atleast 8% of all methane release into the atmosphere.

Paul Allen · « **Reply #57 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:53:15 AM »

Quote from: The_Leafy_Bug on October 18, 2007, 10:52:07 AM

Are you a moron? Just look at China for example. People aren't moving to the cities because of jobs. They are moving because they country side is so badly polluted they can't live there and by them moving to the city they put more strain on local water supply and add to air pollution.

Sources?

And no, I don't consider myself a moron. I'm far more educated than you are.

wisconsinBB · « **Reply #58 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:54:28 AM »

Quote from: The_Leafy_Bug on October 18, 2007, 10:52:07 AM

Are you a moron? Just look at China for example. People aren't moving to the cities because of jobs. They are moving because they country side is so badly polluted they can't live there and by them moving to the city they put more strain on local water supply and add to air pollution.

Source?

Just kidding. There's no doubt that pollution sucks balls and needs to stop regardless what your opinion on global warming is. The bay of green bay is one of the dirtiest bodies of water in the world. BTW adonis, I had a 5 credit "Ecosphere in Crisis" course last summer, I learned plenty about whats going on.

The_Leafy_Bug · « **Reply #59 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:55:22 AM »

Quote from: Paul Allen on October 18, 2007, 10:53:15 AM

Sources?

And no, I don't consider myself a moron. I'm far more educated than you are.

I have here before me Elizabeth C. Economys the River Runs Black. Pollution is so bad in china that it is taking up 8-12% of their overall GDP. If they do not fix this IT WILL end their economic boom. Enviornmental protection my be costly in the begining but it creates more jobs and is better in the long run.

wisconsinBB · « **Reply #60 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:56:58 AM »

Quote from: The_Leafy_Bug on October 18, 2007, 10:55:22 AM

I have here before me Elizabeth C. Economys the River Runs Black. Pollution is so bad in china that it is taking up 8-12% of their overall GDP. If they do not fix this IT WILL end their economic boom. Enviornmental protection my be costly in the begining but it creates more jobs and is better in the long run.

The milwaukee bucks #1 draft pick this year was from china. I'll ask him

The_Leafy_Bug · « **Reply #61 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:58:12 AM »

Quote from: wisconsinBB on October 18, 2007, 10:56:58 AM

The milwaukee bucks #1 draft pick this year was from china. I'll ask him

If you would like a more prominent scholar why don't you ask Kenneth Lieberthal what he thinks about China's environmental situation.

Paul Allen · « **Reply #62 on:** October 18, 2007, 10:59:10 AM »

Quote from: The_Leafy_Bug on October 18, 2007, 10:55:22 AM

I have here before me Elizabeth C. Economys the River Runs Black. Pollution is so bad in china that it is taking up 8-12% of their overall GDP. If they do not fix this IT WILL end their economic boom. Enviornmental protection my be costly in the begining but it creates more jobs and is better in the long run.

well, for each counterpoint we make to each other, we can find 10 others disproving it.

"science is not an exact science."

The_Leafy_Bug · « **Reply #63 on:** October 18, 2007, 11:02:58 AM »

Quote from: Paul Allen on October 18, 2007, 10:59:10 AM

well, for each counterpoint we make to each other, we can find 10 others disproving it.

"science is not an exact science."

These are all facts. If you want to look at the hindering of short term economic growth then you might see counterpoints but if they don't fix it the government sacrafices overall social and political instability. It is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation but if they want to see the success of their country then they MUST got green. Hell, they are still using leaded gas and coal over there. TVE account for 50% of the countries pollution. Over a 4th of the country is a desert. These are facts. Not opinions.

McFarland · « **Reply #64 on:** October 18, 2007, 11:18:27 AM »

Quote from: The True Adonis on October 18, 2007, 10:04:10 AM

Of course a MASSIVE SELF-SUSTAINING FARM would use more energy than a normal home. His farm is as green as it can get given the technology. He has totally offset his carbon usage. (Think of it like a caloric deficit) His carbon footprint is negative. Do you want him to build his own Powerplant?

ROFL Tell 'em, Adam.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #65 on:** October 18, 2007, 11:20:09 AM »

Quote from: Paul Allen on October 18, 2007, 10:59:10 AM

well, for each counterpoint we make to each other, we can find 10 others disproving it.

"science is not an exact science."

The Coach · « **Reply #66 on:** October 18, 2007, 11:21:00 AM »

Quote from: The True Adonis on October 18, 2007, 09:37:10 AM

Iran is a sovereign nation and not an enemy. He is also a master at riding horses.

Then move to Iran.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #67 on:** October 18, 2007, 11:24:32 AM »

Quote from: The Coach on October 18, 2007, 11:21:00 AM

Then move to Iran.

Why would I do that? The majority of Americans don`t mind Iran and think they are harmless.

MisterMagoo · « **Reply #68 on:** October 18, 2007, 11:25:48 AM »

Quote from: The Coach on October 18, 2007, 11:21:00 AM

Then move to Iran.

i think you might do better there. i prefer a secular society that doesn't wage wars of aggression, you apparently enjoy imperialist theocracies, so any of the islamic middle eastern nations should suit you fine.