- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do you believe in global warming?
Posted on 12/15/16 at 9:51 pm to Dale51
Posted on 12/15/16 at 9:51 pm to Dale51
How are you quantifying that claim? Because last time I checked we're on the verge of our next major extinction event, the area of rainforest are in decline, we're losing coral reefs and aquatic diversity, and there are well documented droughts occurring throughout the world, and I could go on and on.
To think that environmentalism is about money is asinine. Many of the ethics behind environmentalism are unquantifiable, which is why they're so unpopular. You can tell me how much money you'll make off a certain quantity of oil, but it's a lot more difficult to quantify the impact of getting that oil when you look on it's impact on the environment you're extracting it from (look at BP spill in the Gulf).
And if you think that people of faith are just "living their lives" then you are living in a bubble that I must not be a part of.
Environmentalism isn't a religion, it's based on observations that we have profound impacts on the natural world around us which in turn affects us. It's people like you who try to demonize/politicize scientist's efforts to help us create a sustainable society and continue to peddle uninformed opinions based on faith as fact which will result in future generation's quality of life declining.
To think that environmentalism is about money is asinine. Many of the ethics behind environmentalism are unquantifiable, which is why they're so unpopular. You can tell me how much money you'll make off a certain quantity of oil, but it's a lot more difficult to quantify the impact of getting that oil when you look on it's impact on the environment you're extracting it from (look at BP spill in the Gulf).
And if you think that people of faith are just "living their lives" then you are living in a bubble that I must not be a part of.
Environmentalism isn't a religion, it's based on observations that we have profound impacts on the natural world around us which in turn affects us. It's people like you who try to demonize/politicize scientist's efforts to help us create a sustainable society and continue to peddle uninformed opinions based on faith as fact which will result in future generation's quality of life declining.
This post was edited on 12/15/16 at 9:59 pm
2
Posted on 12/15/16 at 10:08 pm to Killean
quote:
Killean
Claims the seas are rising dramatically....but lives in Port Charlotte, Fl.
Know how I know you don't believe what you claim.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 10:13 pm to Dale51
quote:
In the last 70 years or so the Earth has greened, the environment has become healthier, and people health and quality of life has improved greatly. This should be obvious.
the hilarious irony here is that..
this all happened because of regulation
This post was edited on 12/15/16 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 12/16/16 at 5:54 am to Dale51
quote:
According to co2.earth, global carbon (C) emissions from fossil fuel use were 9.795 gigatons (Gt) in 2014. What kind of idiot thinks that could contribute to global warming in any way, shape or form?
quote:
Forgot the sarc tag.
Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. What sarc tag?
And for all you global warming whiners out there, tell us:
How does 9.795 gigatons of carbon emissions have any effect whatsoever on our environment? I mean, if you can prove to me that 9.795 gigatons of carbon–a drop of ant piss in the universe–causes so little as one single cough in one little baby–then I'll donate $100 to your favorite one-world-government-socialist-anarchist-welfare-state-cradle-to-grave-leach-parasite-kill-all-the-rich-tree-hugging-progressive-activist-unemployed-bum-weed-smoking-hippie-trash "environmental" organization.
I hear the sound of crickets already.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 5:59 am to rpg37
Every year if this thread is done at the same time that upvote to downvote ratio will slowly shift. In roughly 10 years I'd say everyone will be at least to the point of knowing it's happening and human activity is expediting the earth warming. I don't think it's gonna be annihilation of the human race though.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:13 am to olddawg26
quote:
In roughly 10 years I'd say everyone will be at least to the point of knowing it's happening and human activity is expediting the earth warming.
So if you really believe that then there is only one solution - population control. Less people, less pollution. What kind of population control program would you suggest? That's not a crack question. If you're serious with your post them I'm serious with my question.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:14 am to Homesick Tiger
I'm not having kids. What have you done?
Also there's not only one solution. The same people who are telling you it's real are busy in the lab while you're on a message board. Just the other day German scientists discovered a way to make a sort of super algae that absorbs way more CO2 than what we thought they could. Science is step by step. I actually have faith that someone will have a way to combat it before too long, but it goes against the narrative because they're the same people getting paid to study it. Pokes a big ole hole in that theory eh?
Also there's not only one solution. The same people who are telling you it's real are busy in the lab while you're on a message board. Just the other day German scientists discovered a way to make a sort of super algae that absorbs way more CO2 than what we thought they could. Science is step by step. I actually have faith that someone will have a way to combat it before too long, but it goes against the narrative because they're the same people getting paid to study it. Pokes a big ole hole in that theory eh?
This post was edited on 12/16/16 at 6:18 am
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:16 am to rpg37
I'm keeping my car and will use airplanes for long trips.
I'm glad to let others live Amish to save the world for me.
I'm glad to let others live Amish to save the world for me.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:24 am to Homesick Tiger
Population control will be a necessity IMO, although I doubt we see it in our lifetimes. But it's estimated that our max population should be around 4 Billion with our current consumptive patterns. However, If we're able to find food/energy/lifestyle alternatives then I think that number would adjust.
Realistically, if someone were to propose a form of population control at this point it would have to come in the form of voluntary-incentivised (tax cuts) programs where people are rewarded for having fewer children. There's no way in hell that a mandatory program of any sort would be allowed by the general public.
Realistically, if someone were to propose a form of population control at this point it would have to come in the form of voluntary-incentivised (tax cuts) programs where people are rewarded for having fewer children. There's no way in hell that a mandatory program of any sort would be allowed by the general public.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:26 am to BigOrangeVols
Don't they already have that in China?
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:28 am to rpg37
I don't really care about global warming. Maybe humans make the earth warmer (logical conclusion) and maybe they don't. I have no plans to combat the problem either way.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:28 am to olddawg26
quote:
I'm not having kids.
Being 65, neither am I.
quote:
What have you done?
Oh, just the little things. Putting trash where it belongs is probably my biggest contribution to a pollution controlled environment.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:31 am to Homesick Tiger
Fair enough. Check out a natural history museum sometime if you want to get better answers than message boards. They usually have people on site that can help a lot.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:39 am to olddawg26
quote:Not really. In fact in contrast to your assertion, solutions such as algae or iron seeding have been sharply opposed by paid warmists. That is part of the problem. For Warmist scientists there is but one solution -- unilaterally shut off fossil fuel use in the US. It is stupidity of the first order.
I actually have faith that someone will have a way to combat it before too long, but it goes against the narrative because they're the same people getting paid to study it.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:45 am to BigOrangeVols
quote:
Environmentalism isn't a religion, it's based on observations that we have profound impacts on the natural world around us which in turn affects us. It's people like you who try to demonize/politicize scientist's efforts to help us create a sustainable society and continue to peddle uninformed opinions based on faith as fact which will result in future generation's quality of life declining.
Bingo!
Give that man a low carbon dioxide cigar!
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:47 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Not really. In fact in contrast to your assertion, solutions such as algae or iron seeding have been sharply opposed by paid warmists. That is part of the problem. For Warmist scientists there is but one solution -- unilaterally shut off fossil fuel use in the US. It is stupidity of the first order.
Strawman. No one is saying to shut off fossil fuel use entirely. But fossil fuel use is clearly part of the problem.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:54 am to olddawg26
I know they have limits on how many kids you can have but I'm not sure what all they have to reduce population. I know China's method is flawed due to the culture surrounding boys vs. girls in that they prefer boys and there are high rates of abandonment for girls.
My opinion is that I wouldn't place a limit of number of kids but I would love for us to have free family planning services (vasectomies/etc) and even have those services be incentivised. Programs like that would be net-positive both environmentally and economically, as they would likely have a larger impact on lower income families.
**And when I say we won't see it I mean in the US, not necessarily the World.
My opinion is that I wouldn't place a limit of number of kids but I would love for us to have free family planning services (vasectomies/etc) and even have those services be incentivised. Programs like that would be net-positive both environmentally and economically, as they would likely have a larger impact on lower income families.
**And when I say we won't see it I mean in the US, not necessarily the World.
This post was edited on 12/16/16 at 6:55 am
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:54 am to rpg37
Idk it's 37 degrees right now in louisiana ...so
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:58 am to BigOrangeVols
Agreed, I think overpopulation is definitely an issue and constantly becoming worse. No one is gonna be elected in favor of slowing down the growth of the species. Maybe incentive programs could be a future thought.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 6:59 am to burke985
Can't even tell if that's a joke or not anymore.
Page 11 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News