Really, what? Bee specific please, dude.
Really, what? Bee specific please, dude.
what about glass? what is to stop us from going back to glass, aluminum, and steal containers and eliminating plastic altogether. Plastic's only utility seems to be its low cost for manufacturers, and of course it is lighter than the alternatives. Appropriately, as peasants of capitalism we must assess its value with a cost-benefit analyses. Is the continued use of plastic worth the hazard it presents to our planet? We must decide what part of us will inform our decision, the consumer or the citizen?
Yeah! We're all doomed! Maybe in another 132 years the sea will rise another foot...
http://news.yahoo.com/figures-more-us-risk-sea-level-rise-124408242.html
Just buy a nice place in the mountains and then your great-great grandchildren will have oceanfront property.
good swimmer wrote:
Yeah! We're all doomed! Maybe in another 132 years the sea will rise another foot...
http://news.yahoo.com/figures-more-us-risk-sea-level-rise-124408242.htmlJust buy a nice place in the mountains and then your great-great grandchildren will have oceanfront property.
You do realize that it would take less than that to devastate our food supply right? No one is going to die of global warming, they're going to die of starvation. Between heat and rising seas, our food supply will diminish. Add that to the rising population, and we're in trouble.
No Way wrote:
good swimmer wrote:Yeah! We're all doomed! Maybe in another 132 years the sea will rise another foot...
http://news.yahoo.com/figures-more-us-risk-sea-level-rise-124408242.htmlJust buy a nice place in the mountains and then your great-great grandchildren will have oceanfront property.
You do realize that it would take less than that to devastate our food supply right? No one is going to die of global warming, they're going to die of starvation. Between heat and rising seas, our food supply will diminish. Add that to the rising population, and we're in trouble.
You do realize that you are conversing with folks for whom logic has no place - as their entire cranial capacity is filled chock full of ignorance and they're not letting go of any of that precious commodity any time soon.
Logical Man wrote: You do realize that you are conversing with folks for whom logic has no place - as their entire cranial capacity is filled chock full of ignorance and they're not letting go of any of that precious commodity any time soon.
highly illogical, sir......
gis wrote:It's interesting that you all act like scientists...I doubt any of you have Ph.D.s in a scientific field, however.
I happen to have one. I've posted in this thread and other similar recent ones, under different handles, but it makes no difference who I am, I'm a nobody like everyone else.
The biggest problem I have with this issue is to find relatively unbiased good science on the topic. This is a very emotional issue for most people, and whenever one begins a discussion on the topic, it very quickly degrades into childish insults, and very little substantive, informed discussion takes place. When I go looking for something to read, I find that everything is firmly framedfrom a position of bias.
I've found I can't discuss this topic with friends, and this includes well educated friends (engineers and scientists with masters or doctorates and 20-30 years experience), without the same thing happening. People will burst blood vessels arguing their positions, incapable of understanding my reluctance to jump onto their personal bandwagons.
I started another thread on here precisely because I can't have this conversation with real people, as it never ends well.
I'm in the same boat. I work for an organization who does research on The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. You would think everyone would be environmentally conscious, but it is amazing to me how thick some people can be.
Well, I do... wrote:
gis wrote:It's interesting that you all act like scientists...I doubt any of you have Ph.D.s in a scientific field, however.I happen to have one. I've posted in this thread and other similar recent ones, under different handles, but it makes no difference who I am, I'm a nobody like everyone else.
The biggest problem I have with this issue is to find relatively unbiased good science on the topic. This is a very emotional issue for most people, and whenever one begins a discussion on the topic, it very quickly degrades into childish insults, and very little substantive, informed discussion takes place. When I go looking for something to read, I find that everything is firmly framedfrom a position of bias.
I've found I can't discuss this topic with friends, and this includes well educated friends (engineers and scientists with masters or doctorates and 20-30 years experience), without the same thing happening. People will burst blood vessels arguing their positions, incapable of understanding my reluctance to jump onto their personal bandwagons.
I started another thread on here precisely because I can't have this conversation with real people, as it never ends well.
No Way wrote:
good swimmer wrote:Yeah! We're all doomed! Maybe in another 132 years the sea will rise another foot...
http://news.yahoo.com/figures-more-us-risk-sea-level-rise-124408242.htmlJust buy a nice place in the mountains and then your great-great grandchildren will have oceanfront property.
You do realize that it would take less than that to devastate our food supply right? No one is going to die of global warming, they're going to die of starvation. Between heat and rising seas, our food supply will diminish. Add that to the rising population, and we're in trouble.
Well, with the size of the world population we won't all starve, once they start dropping like flies the strong will start eating the corpses and that should take a while, the chinese alone will takes years to eat. Can't wait to get to the Japs, those big calves, better than chicken.
The thing is, you're not joking. I'm not sure how many people will turn to cannibalism, but we will have a lot of dead to deal with.
alferd packer. wrote:
No Way wrote:You do realize that it would take less than that to devastate our food supply right? No one is going to die of global warming, they're going to die of starvation. Between heat and rising seas, our food supply will diminish. Add that to the rising population, and we're in trouble.
Well, with the size of the world population we won't all starve, once they start dropping like flies the strong will start eating the corpses and that should take a while, the chinese alone will takes years to eat. Can't wait to get to the Japs, those big calves, better than chicken.
It amazes me how facetious some LR posters are. I think they just want to get people riled up for the sake of causing commotion. Everyone knows humans are causing the earth to warm up. Don't even bother playing their game.
On another note, did you know that EATING VEGAN JUST 1 DAY A WEEK WILL CAUSE YOU TO HAVE LESS OF A CARBON FOOTPRINT THAN EATING 100% LOCAL FOOD FOR 7 DAYS A WEEK. shows you how many fossil fuels/energy/resources are required to raise animals for food these days.
electron1661 wrote:
It amazes me how facetious some LR posters are. I think they just want to get people riled up for the sake of causing commotion. Everyone knows humans are causing the earth to warm up. Don't even bother playing their game.
On another note, did you know that EATING VEGAN JUST 1 DAY A WEEK WILL CAUSE YOU TO HAVE LESS OF A CARBON FOOTPRINT THAN EATING 100% LOCAL FOOD FOR 7 DAYS A WEEK. shows you how many fossil fuels/energy/resources are required to raise animals for food these days.
Did you know that eating a vegan will eliminate an annoying person from our planet.
electron1661 wrote:Everyone knows humans are causing the earth to warm up.Please remember that before the time of Galileo and Copernicus, everyone knew the sun revolved around the earth. And before the time of Columbus, everyone knew the world was flat.
And for some more meaningful popular culture references, here are two more things I didn't blindly accept simply because everyone "knew" them to be true:
- the world will crash to a halt on Y2K (rewind the clock 13 years)
- Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction (rewind to ~ 2001, and in particular to Colin Powell's shameful address to the UN security council, which is, I think, the reason he's stayed away from politics since then; he's THAT ashamed of having let himself be brainwashed into telling blatant lies in front of the world)
You should be careful about deciding to believe something simply because everyone "knows" it to be true, particularly if it's something that attracts emotional debate, as does climate change (which we don't even cll global warming aymore, you may note...)
Well, I do... wrote:
electron1661 wrote:Everyone knows humans are causing the earth to warm up.Please remember that before the time of Galileo and Copernicus, everyone knew the sun revolved around the earth. And before the time of Columbus, everyone knew the world was flat.
these are fun pop culture references. but they are not true. while the large majority of the population was ignorant and therefore assumed certain things about the universe, the educated few knew differently.
Well, I do... wrote:
Please remember that before the time of Galileo and Copernicus, everyone knew the sun revolved around the earth. And before the time of Columbus, everyone knew the world was flat.
That is funny on so many levels it staggers the imagination.
It was well known that the world was round for more than a thousand years prior to Columbus, at least among the educated classes.
This fact is well known today, at least among the educated classes.
Kinda puts a funny light on your knowing better about things that are well known, huh?
Well, I do... wrote:
I happen to have one (a PhD in scientific field). . .
. . . The biggest problem I have with this issue is to find relatively unbiased good science on the topic.
So just to be clear, you have a PhD and are incapable of doing a literature search? Or are you claiming that all the research is biased? If the latter, what is your objective rational for determining whether a particular study is or is not biased?
Here is the unfortunate truth wrote:
That is funny on so many levels it staggers the imagination.
It was well known that the world was round for more than a thousand years prior to Columbus, at least among the educated classes.
This fact is well known today, at least among the educated classes.
Kinda puts a funny light on your knowing better about things that are well known, huh?
Ha! We both jumped on this guy at the same time. How about the Y2K/Iraq comments? The world ending over Y2K was a propagated myth while systems functioning incorrectly was a probable outcome. Meanwhile, WMDs in Iraq was apparently so "known by everyone" that many of the traditional allies of the US refused to support the invasion.
Well, I do... wrote:
And for some more meaningful popular culture references, here are two more things I didn't blindly accept simply because everyone "knew" them to be true:
- the world will crash to a halt on Y2K (rewind the clock 13 years)
- Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction (rewind to ~ 2001, and in particular to Colin Powell's shameful address to the UN security council, which is, I think, the reason he's stayed away from politics since then; he's THAT ashamed of having let himself be brainwashed into telling blatant lies in front of the world)
You should be careful about deciding to believe something simply because everyone "knows" it to be true, particularly if it's something that attracts emotional debate, as does climate change (which we don't even cll global warming aymore, you may note...)
Y2K doomsday? Pop culture
Everyone I talked with about this at the time (admittedly, these are all well educated individuals) knew that there was some work to be done to update some old code but that the doomsday scenarios were just to sell magazines
Iraq WOMD? Pop culture
I could count on one one hand the number of folks who I talked to who believed that nonsense was anything more than beating the drums of war to get the moronic masses ready to go.
You know, I detect a pattern here. You seem to be unable to differentiate between pop culture and science. Perhaps you should start there.
Here is the unfortunate truth wrote:Iraq WOMD? Pop culture
I could count on one one hand the number of folks who I talked to who believed that nonsense was anything more than beating the drums of war to get the moronic masses ready to go.
Ah, so this is how it's going to be then? You will just re-create your own notions of history to suit your story? OK then. You win.
For the record, if you followed LR back in 2001-02 in the lead up to the war, there was very little doubt on here about the existence of WMD. Of course, when it was confirmed they dd not in fact exist, there was a lot of backpedalling, with people updating their original rationales for supporting the invasion.
And it may not have been you, but let's not try to perpetuate nonsense about everyone "knowing" the true dynamics of the solar system before Copernicus. Galileo was only very recently forgiven by the Vatican for his heresy.
These days, if you express any doubts about the link between climate change and human activity, you're similarly branded a heretic, if perhaps not by the catholic church (although maybe by them, who knows/cares).
Smeone asked why a PhD wouldn't just do a proper literaure review. That's a fair question, and the answer is I neither have the time nor the deep concern to do a proper and careful review of the MASSIVE body of published work, hence my request in another thread for suggestions on good (relatively unbiased) reading.
I'm still open to suggestions, and I still have an open mind on this whole topic.