Shanti1 said:

I'd rather not live in a pod on the moon.

NDRU said:

Me either...it is too beautiful here on earth

Shanti1 said:

From a certain point of view, yes... But from another point of view, it is ugly.

NDRU said:

man-made.

I love it when people talk about how concerned they are about global warming and how we should do something to stop it. And then, when you point out factors indicating that man is not entirely at fault, they change the subject to one of, "Well...I was really mostly concerned about pollution."

Folks all worried, but they don't know what they're worried about.

Genesia said:

I think it was pretty clear what they were worried about. Whatever does not really matter- we can let some one else worry about it after we are gone.
I do realise that some things regarding global warming are natural but I do not think we should then say fuck it- it is not our problem when it comes to man made problems like pollution.

lilgish said:

yes most pollution is

My house is a mere 5-ft. above sea level.

When those polar caps start melting, I'll be out of a home!

Genesia said:

Well, I happen to believe in global warming, so I worry about it. That doesn't mean there aren't other factors. I never said it was entirely man's fault. But that doesn't mean they aren't partially at fault.

All I was saying was if you think global warming is just a natural cycle, don't you at least believe in pollution in general?

see what global warming is doing to my posts?--edit
[Edited 4/17/07 16:49pm]

NDRU said:

It's well-known that the Earth goes through cycles of shifting temperatures.
BUT THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE OUR RAMPANT DESTRUCTION OF THE LAND!!!
If it weren't for alarmists, there would be no incentive for people, businesses and governments to try to clean up our acts!
...and the ice caps would melt that much faster.

If you don't "believe in" global warming, answer me this (same damn question I always pose to anti-evolution folks, btw, and NEVER get an answer to):

How could it NOT happen?

With what we are putting into the atmosphere, and with our pretty solid understanding of the physics involved. . .how could we NOT be having an effect?

Go!

NDRU said:

Pollution is a byproduct of human existence. It is absolutely unavoidable. The most effective way to improve the environment is to allow economies to mature to the point that they can afford to create and utilize technologies to deal with pollution. The solution is not to enact draconian regulations and taxes that drain economies of resources that might otherwise be used to come up with said technologies.

You want to talk about environmental degradation? Let's go back 150 years to when people in the United States and Europe still pooped, pissed and dumped their garbage in the streets, and raw sewage went into rivers and lakes. You know...like they still do in parts of the world.

The air and water (in the United States, anyway) are cleaner now than they were even 20 years ago -- despite our population being larger.

Genesia said:

First, the US environment has seen improvements because of the very regulation you deride. Second, said improvements are evidence that pollution is not unavoidable, as you assert. Third, regulation incentivizes the development of new technologies, it doesn't hinder it. Fourth, the fact that some contributions to global warming may be natural (volcanic activity, for example) does not mean that man's contribution to global warming is without consequence.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Humans are animals, and part of nature. If they invent pollution, its part of the natural order of things. If enough of them don't like the globe getting warmer, they do something about it. It's all part of nature and i'm off for a wank

LittleSmedley said:

Morning LittleSmedley..

HereToRockYourWorld said:

OMG No one has had answer for you.

extremely. it's mid-april in new york, and the weather has been REALLY off all winter, and right now it still feels like winter.

Genesia said:

do you have back-up on that?

The more I think of it the more it unnerves me.

cborgman said:

Honey, I'm 46 years old. My back-up is my own eyes and my own experience. I am one generation removed from an outdoor shitter (my mom didn't know indoor plumbing 'til she was 10 years old). My family had a backyard incinerator when I was growing up. In other words, we burned our own trash and yard waste (that's where my "blankie" ended up). All our neighbors did the same. And we lived in the city. All those little fires created a lot of smoke and pollution -- pollution that is no longer there because outdoor fires in the city are illegal now.

Ever been to London? Were you there before they started sandblasting all the soot (from generations of individual coal fires) off the buildings? I was there in 1983 (when they were just starting) and in 2000 (after they'd been at it awhile). The difference in the appearance of that city is incredible. (I have pictures to prove it.) Paris is the same way.

Los Angeles is much less smoggy than it used to be -- and there are more cars there than ever.

There have been similar advances in solid waste. We used to throw glass, metal, and yard waste out with the regular trash -- and it went into landfills. We recycle now.

Aerosol cans, air conditioners -- these all used CFCs, which are now banned. (The ban may have contributed to the Challenger explosion. But, hey -- the ozone's better, right?)

I could go on forever.

I think part of the reason young people are so susceptible to extreme environmental rhetoric is that they don't know how far we've really come. That's not a knock. I'm just saying that having a wider frame of reference helps you keep things in perspective.

Genesia said:

She knows her stuff!

It is propaganda and self serving! There is a lot of money to be made scaring people into this type of thinking.
[Edited 4/18/07 7:32am]

Genesia said:

i mean actual back-up that supports your claim that "The air and water (in the United States, anyway) are cleaner now than they were even 20 years ago"

i am not saying you are wrong, i just want to see reports that verify such a claim, because anyone can just declare soemthing as true. for instance, i can say "last night i enjoyed a threesome with collin farrell and george w. bush in the middle of times square while we sang "macarthur park", however, without evidence...

Genesia said:

Sweet Jesus, I got dem inner city Genesia Blues

cborgman said:

Reports from whom? What source would provide incontrovertible evidence for you?

The whole global warming debate is proof that people can make numbers say anything they want. That goes for governmental agencies, quasi-governmental agencies, special interest groups, think tanks -- anyone you care to name. Take a single set of numbers and the EPA and the Cato Institute are going to say things are getting better. The Sierra Club and Greenpeace going to say they're getting worse. Everyone has an agenda -- even those who say they don't.

If you can't believe me when I relate what I have witnessed with my own eyes, why should I think you'd believe any numbers I care to toss out? Hmmmmm?

Genesia said:

well, you just said EVERYONE has an agenda and can distort evidence. why should i think you aren't doing the same, particularly when you don't even bother to back-up, and just expect us to take your word for it?

Shanti1 said:

Every time. I'm telling you.

cborgman said:

In order to have an agenda, you have to have at least some sense that you are capable of swaying opinion. I harbor no such illusions (especially as it relates to this joint).

I asked a simple question. Who would you believe? Since, instead of simply answering the question, you felt the need to question my veracity, I am left believing that -- whoever it is -- it ain't me.

Genesia said:

well, show me something, anything that verifies your claim that "The air and water (in the United States, anyway) are cleaner now than they were even 20 years ago" and i will believe you.

saying in essence 'you're just going to have to take my word on it' does not a compelling argument make.