A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Well, if you call National Geographic, the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and nature documentaries "the media."
Republicans think that global warming is a myth because it still snows in the winter.
-
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!
Evolve Now
- Thread starter Danny Heim
- Start date
Well, if you call National Geographic, the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and nature documentaries "the media."
Republicans think that global warming is a myth because it still snows in the winter.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
[only if he had his head up his *** for the past 10 years]
Danny Heim
Active Member
That is all very, very true. And like I said earlier, I most likely will source this paper, and yes, I could do it in about an hour I imagine, no problem. But here is the thing. I've seen this over and over on the internet, applying he blue line to a word doesn't mean a thing. And to those it does mean something, it has merely become a protocal that you can call someone on. It's a bunch of amature journalists trying to look professional, it's kind of rediculous This has only happened on the internet. Another thing, my paper just scatter shots the issues when it comes to the details. I did not write to educate about the individual impacts of climate change, I just listed them occationally. And that is all that technically needs to be soucred in this paper. But It won't make any difference to source those listings. And it certainlky will not be "substantiating climate change ". And if I do source, people will read, see there is a source, not read it, then put the paper down and will not check it out for themselves, which is my biggest hope for the outcome of this paper, that people find out about climate change. that is the thing aobut this issue, it takes a bit of study to get it. You have to read more than one article, way more than one. There are so many aspects to it, you could read forever. But just a few days will do.
Last edited:
Danny Heim
Active Member
Actually, even those outlets should have wetted appetites, because pictures go a long way to tell one about what's happening. Here we go again, see, the message being killed by the messenger, but that's not what's killing it, what's killing it is denial, nothing more. The message is too big to hear, even from Animal Planet. J
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
You really need to study some human psychology... or at least read a good book like: Amazon.com: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (9780670033379): Jared Diamond: Books: Reviews, Prices & more
wa:do
wa:do
Danny Heim
Active Member
Actually no, that is not true. I know people that thought they really knew a lot about climate change, but then after talking with them awhile, they found out they didn't know near as much as they thought. They know mostly about the political aspects of it, which are a joke and should be ignored. They know little about the impacts and what it is doing and will do and when, which should be listen to very closely and studied.
Danny Heim
Active Member
Sounds good, could you elaborate though, not sure where you are coming from? Are you saying I need to play up to the human need for order?
Danny Heim
Active Member
Ill try some sourcing and then Ill try this somewhere else. Will the discussion continue, will it make a difference? Lets experiment.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Ah, come on, man. If you are that concerned about changing things based on environmental concerns, the political aspects of it are substantially important to affecting this change. And we've seen amazing progress in the regulation of several contaminates on a global scale in the past five years. The only civilized nation on earth who has been unwilling to make significant changes is the United States, and if people like you want ordinary people to change, we'll see even more regulations for cars, emmissions, and etc.
Climate change and environmental concerns ARE political issues that impact our health and the survival of the planet.
Telling people to ignore these issues shows profound apathy for your cause.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
No, I'm saying we need to convince governments and the populace that the environment has real tangible value outside of simple raw materials to be extracted.Sounds good, could you elaborate though, not sure where you are coming from? Are you saying I need to play up to the human need for order?
For example, the Kenyan rain-forests have recently been accessed and valued at 1.3 billion US$ annually. Due to their vital impact on every aspect of the Kenyan economy. Thus, preservation of the rain-forest is far more economically logical than short term resource extraction.
BBC News - Placing a value on Kenya's largest forest
By explaining the real value of the forest you increase it's chances of being preserved... preaching does nothing when people are faced with practical needs like food, shelter and livelihood.
Ultimately humans will choose their own short term comfort over long term sustainability (even us environmentalists)... we are terrible at long term planning.
wa:do
Danny Heim
Active Member
Yes they are, but the political paradigms we have now are NOT ABLE to handle this, they certainly are not even getting close to dealing with it NOW, and it appears they are not moving any closer in the future. YES! I am telling people to ignore the political arena when it comes to climate change. Nothing is happening there and nothing is going to happen there except continued slow deterioration. That has been the pattern for 30 years. Why should we stick with it? We need to look else where.
Last edited:
Danny Heim
Active Member
So, you think if you go around the world and educate people on economic soundness and give then a perspective of value, that it is going to stop a 100 foot wave coming at them in about 75 years. No, it is not. This is where our biggest problem lies, that many think that mitigation is still a viable solution, WRONG. WE are way past that. And that forest you mentioned most likely will burn up, better preach at them to find shelter elsewhere, AND PREACH VERY LOUD, YELL IT AT THEM, WAKE THEM UP!! Study, learn.
Yes we are terrible at long term planning. Well, we better get over it.
JustAsking
Educational Use Only
Just because a disaster, of some origin and magnitude, will happen in the future, does not mean we should abandon someone or something and call it quits.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Do you know what happens when you simply preach at people.... they ignore you as a crackpot.
The only way we will preserve anything is by getting the governments of the nations involved to understand it's in their best interests.... that means carrots not sticks.
I'm not simply talking about mitigation... I'm talking about strategies for changing things.
But if you want to keep preaching and wondering why people ignore or ridicule you... be my guest.:beach:
wa:do
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
I would argue that part of the problem is that most of us are irrationally scared of the most economical option: Nuclear fission power. Once your main power grid doesn't produce carbon dioxide, then climate change becomes far less of a problem. (though doesn't quite go away.)
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I try to keep my concerns about fission rational (including the fact that it isn't economical).
But we need a major infrastructure overhaul in the USA to accommodate a low carbon power structure.
The fact is, with the economy the way it is... no one is going to be willing to pay for what needs to be done. Just returning taxes to Regan era levels throws people into apoplectic fits.
They are perfectly happy to burn coal if it means they have extra money now. Regardless of the fact that it will cost them more in the long term.
wa:do
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Uranium, with a energy density about 1000 times that of coal, isn't economical?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Not when you account for the capitol costs to produce the plant, run it (20-83% more water is required for example), keep it secure and then disposal of the waste.
Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not that I'm ruling it out as part of the solution... but it's no magic bullet and leaves us with a new set of issues to kick down the road.
wa:do
Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not that I'm ruling it out as part of the solution... but it's no magic bullet and leaves us with a new set of issues to kick down the road.
wa:do
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
The French managed it.
And it's true that fission isn't really a magic bullet, but since we don't have fusion working yet, IMO, it's still the best option.
And it's true that fission isn't really a magic bullet, but since we don't have fusion working yet, IMO, it's still the best option.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
France is much smaller than the USA and has a very different political atmosphere.
Plus, I don't think simply trading squabbling over oil for squabbling over uranium is going to do us any good as a species.
wa:do
Plus, I don't think simply trading squabbling over oil for squabbling over uranium is going to do us any good as a species.
wa:do