gs

Aug 12 2011, 09:11 AM

that's your argument? that it's a scam? at the very least back up your statement. a lot of people are in denial about this, including some scientists whose articles you might consider 'proof', but the facts remain. it's simple chemistry, as simple as it gets really. read the technical parts of the wiki page and tell me which part is incorrect.

Quote:

 

also i never said animal testing isn't necessary. i also didn't say it isn't vital. what i said was that animals that are being used for testing aren't vital to humanity's future unlike the atmosphere.

DragonLegend

Aug 12 2011, 09:20 AM

gs

Aug 12 2011, 09:11 AM

that's your argument? that it's a scam? at the very least back up your statement. a lot of people are in denial about this, including some scientists whose articles you might consider 'proof', but the facts remain. it's simple chemistry, as simple as it gets really. read the technical parts of the wiki page and tell me which part is incorrect.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_cfc_ban_global_warmings_pi.html

DragonLegend

Aug 12 2011, 08:28 AM

Incog

Aug 12 2011, 07:38 AM

gs

Aug 10 2011, 08:04 PM

i'm not talking about PETA here (and am insulted you would even think that), everyone knows peta is just a bunch of little girls who can't handle reality. i'm talking about global warming, destroying rain forests & coral reefs, eliminating entire species because they taste good, etcetera. basically anything humans do without recognizing the long term negative effects.

in this case humans are no better than animals, literally. a few good ecosystems have been destroyed by introduced species. it's just that humans are doing damage on a more wide-scale scope. it would be unnatural to try to solve this, yet it remains the path to take, simply because humans are a bit more intelligent beings than the rest of nature. unfortunate, but it's the reality of thing.

dragon's reaction to the solution of NOT trying to control the damage being done to the world is a perfectly natural one. like rabbits in Australia (i've got to find a relevant article to back me up with this example), or bacteria on a petri, people are consuming resources and expanding like crazy, without the slightest intelligence of being able to predict how it's going to end when resources and space run out. in this regard, we're quite as stupid and ignorant as a rabbit, except we're much less fluffier and don't have the excuse of not being aware of the damage we do. humans DO know the extent of their damage, but in their uncontrolled greed they ignore precaution, spin atrocious lies and hope that they won't have to suffer the consequences of their actions, laughing as they do at the absolutely hilarious idea that it's possible to change how they live so as to not be as retarded as an amoebae. dragon's a perfect example of this.

one way or another, humanity isn't stronger than all of nature itself. humans still have natural origins and natural instincts, and if we don't fix the problem we're creating, mother nature will do it for us, directly or indirectly. i think we might nuke ourselves but i'm hoping we do it with conventional methods.

You say you're an irreligious atheist, and you oppose Christianity and other religions, but you seem to be a devout worshiper of Gaia. Reminds me of an article I once read: http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_liberal-enthusiam.html

Quote:

 

There’s also a close resemblance between the environmental and biblical views of history, as the late novelist Michael Crichton pointed out in a widely reprinted speech. “Environmentalism is in fact a perfect twenty-first-century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths,” Crichton said. “There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all.” That judgment day currently assumes the form of various global-warming disasters that will happen unless we immediately perform still more rituals. Never mind that the science so urgently instructing us to reduce carbon emissions—thus hobbling economic growth and prosperity around the world—is so young, and so poorly understood, that it can’t explain why global warming seems to have stalled over the last decade. Far more persuasive is the argument from faith: we’d better repent, because the End is nigh.

DragonLegend

Aug 12 2011, 10:18 AM

Which we don't know is a real problem. But we do know for a fact that the measures needed to fight these alleged problems are severely damaging. Good luck selling end-justifies-the-draconian-means environmentalism to the average Joe during an economic crisis.

DragonLegend

Aug 12 2011, 10:18 AM

Which we don't know is a real problem. But we do know for a fact that the measures needed to fight these alleged problems are severely damaging. Good luck selling end-justifies-the-draconian-means environmentalism to the average Joe during an economic crisis.

gs

Aug 12 2011, 10:22 AM

DragonLegend

Aug 12 2011, 10:18 AM

Which we don't know is a real problem. But we do know for a fact that the measures needed to fight these alleged problems are severely damaging. Good luck selling end-justifies-the-draconian-means environmentalism to the average Joe during an economic crisis.

yeah it's hard i know, which is why i made the point about people being ignorant and careless with the environment where they shouldn't be.

Incog

Aug 12 2011, 10:24 AM

DragonLegend

Aug 12 2011, 10:18 AM

Which we don't know is a real problem. But we do know for a fact that the measures needed to fight these alleged problems are severely damaging. Good luck selling end-justifies-the-draconian-means environmentalism to the average Joe during an economic crisis.

Which you don't know refuse to believe is a real problem. Hiding behind silly lies and sprouting utter bullshit will only get you so far. And it's appalling that people actually believe their idiot lies. Reverting to green energy is another silly lie; it's expensive yes, as is any change. But it's also responsible and probably more economic in the long run, which is what governments should be looking at. Of course the oil lobbies have too much power so. GL HF

DragonLegend

Aug 12 2011, 10:38 AM

gs

Aug 12 2011, 10:22 AM

DragonLegend

Aug 12 2011, 10:18 AM

Which we don't know is a real problem. But we do know for a fact that the measures needed to fight these alleged problems are severely damaging. Good luck selling end-justifies-the-draconian-means environmentalism to the average Joe during an economic crisis.

yeah it's hard i know, which is why i made the point about people being ignorant and careless with the environment where they shouldn't be.

Good environmentalism is, for example, recycling and not dumping trash everywhere in town. Radical environmentalism is capping emissions, raising taxes, inhibiting economic growth, and reducing the standard of living. According to polls, most people (yes, even most Americans) support protecting the environment (good environmentalism), but only a minority (even in Europe) support putting the environment ahead of human interests. You call it shortsighted, I call it realistic. People are struggling to make a living, their countries are buried in debt, and you want to kill job growth and the economy in general, raise taxes and the cost of living, and decrease the standard of living, by implement the radical environmentalist agenda? You might as well nuke the world. Same result, less pain.

Ultra-Musketeer

Aug 12 2011, 04:58 PM

The solution to overpopulation is education, imho; developed countries have a perceptibly lower population growth than those that are underdeveloped.

A sufficient education is perhaps the solution to the majority of global issues.

Incog

Aug 12 2011, 11:17 AM

Or when you're not blind anymore. Your call. ;/

gs

Aug 12 2011, 04:42 PM

you're putting words in my mouth. something you love doing. when did i ever say i support any of those measures? and no, i don't call it shortsighted i agree with you. this discussion has been about whether global warming is a real problem, not about how to solve it.

i'm not for any radical changes because i'm well aware our economy can't handle that, i'm just saying people are ignorant about this (demonstrated perfectly by you) and i'm for opening people's eyes about it so that whenever they're not 'fighting to build a living' (which many people aren't) they can for example purchase some solar panels or whatever. this goes for governments and big corporations as well. spending money is always a good thing (for the economy, too), and if it would otherwise sit in a bank account i don't think the choice should be all that difficult. and this is just one of a million things people could do. not using your car for short distances or just using public transport more in general is something else. etcetera. as long as people know about the problem and care about it as much as they should we don't even need any radical measures.

ultra, overpopulation is a big problem but sadly there is no way to prevent it without just straight up killing people or telling them they can't have kids. so let's focus on things we can actually solve, or at least limit the damage of.

Quote:

 

and 'environment ahead of human interest' is never a valid sentence. the environment IS, or should be, a very important human interest. i'm not talking about respecting the earth because i love it so much, i'm talking about the necessity of respecting it because otherwise humanity may be screwing itself over long term. the thing with long term stuff is, and i speak from experience, people aren't as likely to care about that as much as their direct future. it's important though, whether we like it or not.

Quote:

 

ultra, overpopulation is a big problem but sadly there is no way to prevent it without just straight up killing people or telling them they can't have kids. so let's focus on things we can actually solve, or at least limit the damage of.

gs

Aug 12 2011, 10:52 PM

it should say

"american public welcome the idea that it was a hoax and leave it at that without checking the facts"

people, americans especially due to a massive epidemic of ignorance, have the tendency to believe whatever sounds best to them. it's the same with god. if it takes as long for people to realise the greenhouse effect is worrying as it took for them to realise god is made up then we could be in trouble.

Hyperactive Jam

Aug 12 2011, 07:49 PM

Ultra-Musketeer

Aug 12 2011, 04:58 PM

The solution to overpopulation is education, imho; developed countries have a perceptibly lower population growth than those that are underdeveloped.

A sufficient education is perhaps the solution to the majority of global issues.

No, it's poverty, lack of available birth control, that is responsible for a breeding epidemic.

DragonLegend

Aug 12 2011, 11:10 PM

Hyperactive Jam

Aug 12 2011, 07:49 PM

Ultra-Musketeer

Aug 12 2011, 04:58 PM

The solution to overpopulation is education, imho; developed countries have a perceptibly lower population growth than those that are underdeveloped.

A sufficient education is perhaps the solution to the majority of global issues.

No, it's poverty, lack of available birth control, that is responsible for a breeding epidemic.

What we need is more people, not less. The West is dying.

Hyperactive Jam

Aug 12 2011, 07:49 PM

Ultra-Musketeer

Aug 12 2011, 04:58 PM

The solution to overpopulation is education, imho; developed countries have a perceptibly lower population growth than those that are underdeveloped.

A sufficient education is perhaps the solution to the majority of global issues.

No, it's poverty, lack of available birth control, that is responsible for a breeding epidemic.