shmogie
Well-Known Member
Where do you get this stuff from ?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dems and the environment?
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
I am asking you a question. When I assumed you were not in favour of increased output of greenhouse gases you said that assumption was wrong.
So are you in favour of increased greenhouse gases or not?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I have heard this song before. Beginning in the 60ś a movement began predicting that in 20 years over population would start food riots. By 2000 order everywhere would have broken down and people would be starving to death in large numbers. Food would become the sole quest of every human, murder, rapine, all of it would have full reign as the vastly overpopulated earth would be a hell of starvation.
All kinds of scientific papers, charts and articles in support were published.
Many scientists bought into this, and dire warnings were given on a regular basis, doomsday was upon us.
In the early 70ś a new doomsday was added to the first, there was no oil left to use. The world was rabidly running out of oil, and in 10 to 20 years the earths supply of oil would be completely exhausted many dire faced scientists said.
Guess what .......................................?
All kinds of scientific papers, charts and articles in support were published.
Many scientists bought into this, and dire warnings were given on a regular basis, doomsday was upon us.
In the early 70ś a new doomsday was added to the first, there was no oil left to use. The world was rabidly running out of oil, and in 10 to 20 years the earths supply of oil would be completely exhausted many dire faced scientists said.
Guess what .......................................?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
No I am not. Nor am I in favor of hysteria and stupid solutions to the problem. Further, I am not in favor of economies being destroyed on something no one knows will be successful.
I have lived through two of these science driven doomsday predictions regarding overpopulation and the world running out of oil.
In both cases all the scientists with all their charts and papers were absolutely dead wrong.
So now we have the latest doomsday scenario, it may be true, it may not. Panic driven destructive demands that are harmful to society are not the answer.
Here is a proposal for you. Get the largest polluters in the world to achieve what the US has done, meet our ever improving standards regarding carbon emissions, then get back to me, we can talk.
I will never support a radical disruption of American life while others go merrily along doing little.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
And people wonder why the scientists aren't being listened to.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
I actually agree with this. Mainstream Democrats have been far too much rich elites and tied to corporate interest. And that makes far more mess than the private sector. Until we can get the Overton window to shift left enough for Capitol ventures to mean less than human safety, Democrats are going to have mixed success at best. Which us why I want Democrats are *actually* leftists, not center-right by everyone elses standards.
I'll help you clean off the sap afterward.
The numbers paint a pretty clear picture that no point in Earth history outside meteor or super visible volcanic activity has climate changed so fast. Coupled with lining up with industrial timelines, there's no good reason to believe this is a (wholly) natural event.
After all, dimpling in the ozone is common, and there has never been uniform thinness, but it was the lowered release of human-production chlorine into the stratosphere which stopped ozone depletion. (Which is a great thing!)
I'm not. I don't think a recession would change Trump fan's minds, so it would be stupid. It would damage us all for nothing. I hope a lot of Trump's policies will fail because I think they're illogical, immoral or ineffectual but you couldn't tell me with a straight face conservatives didn't do the same with Obama.
Well, I'll admit that I predicted his health care stuff would fail, and it has, miserably....but I would have loved to see it succeed.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
I too am completely solar...I refinanced my home and spent $30,000 to buy panels...but not before I sat down, analyzed my energy consumption (which is a bunch larger than 'normal' because I have elderly parents living with me and we all need medical equipment and air conditioning that goes beyond 'normal'), and found out that it will have paid for itself in seven years flat. Now *I* may not live long enough to see that, but my kids, who will inherit the house, will.
Is solar expensive? It can be, but there are quite a few options out there that allow homeowners to have solar energy systems AND lower their electric bills without coming up with thirty grand up front. It might not return energy costs quite as completely, or as soon, as if one DOES pay for the system up front, but 'rent a roof,' financing and leasing are still pretty good options.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
(sigh) WHICH scientists?
Riders, we managed to survive the Justininan Plague, the medieval plague, the Ice Age with the population bottleneck...
We'll survive this. I'm only concerned about surviving the scientists.
To do that you would need someone capable of leadership.
Riders
Well-Known Member
All the scientists do excuse me........????????
Riders
Well-Known Member
This is NASA research is NASA good enough for you/
We have 12 years to save the world. What do we do now?
We have 12 years to save the world. What do we do now?
And this article is almost a year old. So 11 years.
Riders
Well-Known Member
YEP and now the Amazon forests are burning down.YIKES!
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
You do remember learning that the medical society during Semmelweis's day not only ridiculed him, but ultimately saw to it that he died in an insane asylum because...even though his methods were proven to lower the rate of 'childbirth fever' and deaths from it, they absolutely refused to wash their hands, right?
It was political.
I'm not fond of conspiracy theories, and all this climate change 'we're going to DIEEEEE in ten years!" bushwah is absolutely political. There is no, repeat, NO, scientific basis for it, but there is a great deal of political basis for it...and I"m not going there.
Show me real numbers by people who actually care about facts...and NONE of them are claiming that we're going to be dead in a decade.
But the leftists claim this because they want power. That's it. That's all
And that is disgusting.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Were you aware that the USA has 380 times more trees than it did a hundred years ago, and just as a matter of fact, right now it looks very much as if we have more trees than we did when the Europeans moved in on the continent.
Which is considerably more than England could say. THEY absolutely clear cut their islands many years ago, and had to import and replant every single tree that is ancestor to those growing now. There is a reason that the 'New Forest" is called the 'New Forest."
As for the Amazon...yeah, there is a great deal of clear cutting and fire clearing there. Not done by evil capitalists, as a general rule; 'evil capitalist corporations' know better than to clear cut and fire clear. It's not the best economic way to use land. The folks doing this are, as a rule, doing it ILLEGALLY (as in, it's against the law in most areas to clear cut and fire clear) small subsistance farmers who are continuing a practice that they have used for many, many generations.
I am so tired of this.
Do we need to stop the clear cutting and fire clearing? Yes. We do. But the way to do it is to educate those who are doing it into a better way to manage the land, NOT blaming the evil capitalist corporations, who would handle that area much differently, if they had the doing of it.
Now I won't be around in ten years. (shrug) I just won't be. However, my children and grandchildren will, and I for one refuse to allow chicken littles to poison them into apoplexy.
Riders
Well-Known Member
Right now Amazon rain forests are burning down at a rate of 2 football fields a minute! The rain forests are what provide us with 20 percent of our oxygen. I dont think this earth is gonna be around for long just my ooinion.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm beginning to think that some people just wanna take the planet with them when they go.....
As it happens, while the Amazon rain forest produces 20 percent of the world's oxygen, it also uses it back up at night when it stops swallowing carbon dioxide. It works very much like lungs do; inhaling and exhaling both carbon dioxide and oxygen. It seems that both things seem to be almost totally confined BY the rainforest; so while those trees do produce the oxygen, WE don't get to see much, if any of it.
BTW, the Tiaga forest in Siberia produces more oxygen and absorbs more carbon dioxide than all of the tropical rainforests on the earth, combined. The Tiaga forest holds more than a third of all the trees on earth, making RUSSIA the nation that produces most of the world's oxygen (other than that produced by the ocean).
Oh...and HALF of the world's oxygen is produced, not by the rainforests, but by the OCEAN. You know, phytoplankton.
...........and nobody is burning the Tiaga down.
So take a deep breath, Riders. Yes, we need to do better with the Amazon rainforest. It is an irreplaceable resource...but NOT, it turns out, for it's oxygen producing and carbon dioxide swallowing ability. In fact, since sod (and other agricultural products, like, oh, grass [whatever sort] and poppies and other unfortunate crops) produces MORE oxygen than do trees, those clear cutters and fire clearing farmers are actually going to put more oxygen in the system than the current trees do.
This is NOT me advocating that we level the Amazon rain forest. We really need to protect it better than we do, because it is far more valuable as it is than any amount of oxygen it produces (or doesn't).
And the world will be much poorer for its absence, but y'know what? It won't end.
Last edited:
tytlyf
Not Religious
Water levels are rising and threatening the Maldives. They're experiencing it first hand.
Do you think Maldives will be underwater in the next 100 years?
The fact remains, water levels are rising faster than what is normal for the earth. You're nitpicking timeframe predictions from scientists as proof that global warming isn't influenced by man.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The very fact that scientists are making time frames in the first place doesn't do much when they aren't very useful. Why even bother? Don't do it then.
And they wonder why people don't take them very seriously. It comes across as agenda-driven rather than a legitimate warning.