What was the life expectancy of most people back when the lakes were all pristine, trout jumped into the canoe, and only the smell of campfires was polluting the ozone layer?
About 35, if you were lucky.
But that aside…
I don’t dispute Gore’s right to spend his $$$ on utilities. Just quit carrying on about how all of US need to cut back or the planet will melt.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
How?
This is an old argument that has little validity. Has there been local degradation of local ecosystems? Yes. Global impact? None. You can’t show any proof that human presence on the planet has impacted the planet one way or another.
You haven’t lived long enough to make that kind of grandiose posturing with any degree of certainty beyond that which makes you feel warm and cozy when you turn off your fossil fueled lamp, and crawl into your cotton-sheeted bed.
Change is the only constant in progression. To think that we should keep the earth in a static state is beyond stupidity.
95% of all life was extinct before the junk-science whale huggers showed up to blame the white man for his rape of the planet.
Spare me the crap.
[/quote]
Rainjack, I know your view is “we can do whatever the fuck we want and damn the consequences” and that is fine. However, my view is not the same.
We don’t have to stay static in order to exercise a small amount of care.
You know, if you go camping, you put out your fire. Hey, it could burn down the (local) forest and that wouldn’t be a good event. Livestock could be killed, people homes and lives could be lost, and so forth.
So, honestly, with a little bit of extra effort we could take a little more care in some of the things we do. If you don’t think it is worthwhile, that’s fine, but that a persons view doesn’t agree with yours has little to do with whether it is right or wrong.
If you want to twist what I say into crap, so you can attack it, knock yourself out, but as I told Headhunter, that’s just a form of playing with yourself.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Ask vroom. I am replying to his post. I assume that since it was vroom doing the posting - it means the the evil white americans are in the process of destroying the entire planet.
[/quote]
Yep… like I thought. Making shit up. Get a grip Rainjack, you are way off base.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uhmm,
This has been debunked. (even before global warming)
“human presence on the planet” caused the hole in this thing called the “Ozone”.
It turns out this “Ozone” is actually located above the “Globe” and that having a hole in it effects the “Globe” (global impact). I’m sure you could google “Ozone Hole” for more info on just one way “Human presence on the planet” can have a “global impact”.
Other than your main point being factually wrong, good post.
If you haven’t the evidence to prove causation - which you can’t possibly have, it is only opinion that humans caused the ozone depletion.
Could it be cyclical? Probably. One good volcanic eruption does more harm than all of the cars and cow farts ever produced.
Blaming man. Blaming the evil white man is nothing but political grandstanding.
Thinking that humans have had a negative impact on the planet is utter stupidity. [/quote]
AMEN!! No matter what all the tree huggers will tell you, this planet is not too fragile.
What of the amount of oil released into the oceans as a result of natural fissures?
Does that mean that willful acts should go unpunished? Hell no.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Dead elephants stink like hell for a long time.
[/quote]
About 2 days in their proper ecosystem where other organisms utilize this resource–no really, I am serious. Add 100 dead elephants to that same ecosystem and there might be a little more impact–but the stench isn’t the problem.
Your point about equilibrium is good; however, we must look at it in terms of some timescale in order to make any meaning of it. I agree with you that nature seeks homeostasis but how long it takes to return to said homeostasis is what really causes the impact.
Take a landfill, for example, the pollution is not just local. Left unchecked landfills emit methane gas which becomes airborne–now it is everyone’s problem.
Again, we cannot make any assumptions about how organisms will be impacted by this but you cannot argue the fact that organisms cannot adapt fast enough to deal with an overabundance of pollution. If the amount of pollution grows faster that we can deal with we will be impacted unless we adapt to breath noxious gases within a single lifetime.
Let us not forget the impact energy consumption has on the environment. Even transporting crude oil has the potential to impact the environment. Remember Exxon Valdez? It may have not had a lasting effect but it certainly killed lots of life–what would have been the impact had we not attempted to clean it up?
I do believe that life is resilient and will take root given the proper conditions. But still it would be cool not to have to suffer from our own ignorance.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Let us not forget the impact energy consumption has on the environment. Even transporting crude oil has the potential to impact the environment. Remember Exxon Valdez? It may have not had a lasting effect but it certainly killed lots of life–what would have been the impact had we not attempted to clean it up?[/quote]
If I’m not mistaken, Rainjack doesn’t consider this type of impact, local loss of life, significant on a planetary scale. One life will be replaced by another life, or another life form, and it doesn’t make any difference.
I might not have that exactly right, but I can understand that viewpoint though I’m not going to agree with it.
However, given his nihilistic view of planetary adaptation it will be just about impossible to get him to agree that anything humans can do to the planet can be considered “bad” in some way. This is true with respect to global warming and anything else… whether or not we are actually causing it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I think pollution is a bigger problem than climate change from a man caused perspective. Those results are measurable and can be pointed directly back to man–consumption and waste being the biggest contributers of pollution. And who knows? maybe that will lessen the impact of “man made climate change”. [/quote]
Amen to that.
Would you like a serving of mercury with your fish oil sir?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
firebug9 wrote:
If he was really concerned about global warming, HE would do something about his own home first…
Exactly, he should do like he says in his powerpoint presentations and make every effort to reduce his carbon footprint, by like paying extra for green energy from the utility company, installing solar panels and energy efficient bulbs/appliances etc., and then calculate your carbon footprint and purchase carbon offsets to further invest in clean technologies…
Then tear his house down, and live in a shack.
update: He already is doing all that, 'cepting the tearing down of house. My bad Mr. Gore, for a second there I was just gonna pile on about you being a hypocrite, but as it turns out if you actually do what you say to do then it’s the opposite of hypocrite. Weird how that works.
He should live in a far smaller house to reduce his carbon foot print. He should also stop jetting around the world at the drop of a hat. If humans are causing global warming we need to dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions. Using $ 30,000 of “green electricity” is not going to cut it. He consumes far more than his share of natural resources.
He is a hypocrite and you back his hypocrisy. Sad.[/quote]
I checked again, and living in tiny houses does not appear to be the smartest way to reduce CO2 emissions, nor one he advocates in his presentation. In fact logically if everyone just followed similar actions (reducing carbon footprint regardless of home or business size (both in Gore’s case—business run in the home) then total emissions would be uhhhh reduced.
So factually again, it’s the exact opposite of hypocrite (obviously)
[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uhmm,
This has been debunked. (even before global warming)
“human presence on the planet” caused the hole in this thing called the “Ozone”.
It turns out this “Ozone” is actually located above the “Globe” and that having a hole in it effects the “Globe” (global impact). I’m sure you could google “Ozone Hole” for more info on just one way “Human presence on the planet” can have a “global impact”.
Other than your main point being factually wrong, good post.
If you haven’t the evidence to prove causation - which you can’t possibly have, it is only opinion that humans caused the ozone depletion.
Could it be cyclical? Probably. One good volcanic eruption does more harm than all of the cars and cow farts ever produced.
Blaming man. Blaming the evil white man is nothing but political grandstanding.
Thinking that humans have had a negative impact on the planet is utter stupidity. [/quote]
Rainjack vs. All scientists (99.9999999%)
also Rainjack live in my little pony land where causes have no effects. It’s a magical little place. An imaginary place.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Your point about equilibrium is good; however, we must look at it in terms of some timescale in order to make any meaning of it. I agree with you that nature seeks homeostasis but how long it takes to return to said homeostasis is what really causes the impact.
[/quote]
And that is precisely my point. The fucksticks like vroom are taking the last 100 years as some sort of basis from which to judge a living, breathing organism that is, by all accounts, billions of years old.
If one can’t see the utter fucking stupidity in that sort of thinking - well - I hear PETA, and Greenpeace can use a few good men.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Rainjack vs. All scientists (99.9999999%)
also Rainjack live in my little pony land where causes have no effects. It’s a magical little place. An imaginary place.
[/quote]
Then come with some substantial proof. You telling me that everyone thinks I am ugly is about as stupid as vroom’s idiocy.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You know, if you go camping, you put out your fire. Hey, it could burn down the (local) forest and that wouldn’t be a good event. Livestock could be killed, people homes and lives could be lost, and so forth.
[/quote]
You say we impact the earth in a myriad of ways.
I ask how.
You quote Smokey the fucking Bear.
Go back to your tree. You are a fucking idiot.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
firebug9 wrote:
If he was really concerned about global warming, HE would do something about his own home first…
Exactly, he should do like he says in his powerpoint presentations and make every effort to reduce his carbon footprint, by like paying extra for green energy from the utility company, installing solar panels and energy efficient bulbs/appliances etc., and then calculate your carbon footprint and purchase carbon offsets to further invest in clean technologies…
Then tear his house down, and live in a shack.
update: He already is doing all that, 'cepting the tearing down of house. My bad Mr. Gore, for a second there I was just gonna pile on about you being a hypocrite, but as it turns out if you actually do what you say to do then it’s the opposite of hypocrite. Weird how that works.
He should live in a far smaller house to reduce his carbon foot print. He should also stop jetting around the world at the drop of a hat. If humans are causing global warming we need to dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions. Using $ 30,000 of “green electricity” is not going to cut it. He consumes far more than his share of natural resources.
He is a hypocrite and you back his hypocrisy. Sad.
I checked again, and living in tiny houses does not appear to be the smartest way to reduce CO2 emissions, nor one he advocates in his presentation. In fact logically if everyone just followed similar actions (reducing carbon footprint regardless of home or business size (both in Gore’s case—business run in the home) then total emissions would be uhhhh reduced.
So factually again, it’s the exact opposite of hypocrite (obviously)
[/quote]
I don’t know who you checked with but smaller housing is one of the best ways an individual can reduce carbon emissions.
And following Al Gore’s plan will have no real effect. If the global warming alarmists are correct we need to dial our emissions back to a pre industrial age level.
So not only is Al Gore a hypocrite by using far more energy and emitting far more CO2 than his share he is also deceptive that his “fix” would do damn thing.
He knows damn well that if this is real it would require drastic changes to our lifestyles to slow or even reverse the trend.
So he is a hypocrite and possibly a liar. And you continue to defend him.
http://www.wwf.org.au/news/mass-extinctions-underway-but-its-still-possible-to-stop/
http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/current/gomex-factsheet.html
http://www.pacificislandtravel.com/nature_gallery/freshwatercontamination.html
http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2006/2006-11-06-02.asp
Just a few links that I found that talk about some of the impacts of human behavior on our planet. I’m not a doom and gloom type of person but lets get real.The benefits of a modern mechanized fossil fuel society are extremely valuable but pretending they don’t have an environmental cost is ridiculous. Nothing in life is free and without risk.
Humanism has it’s merits but there is clearly a point where the goals of environmentalist and humanists overlap. Recognizing this isn’t the same as being an eco-fascist trying to gain power through fear but unfortunately these types of environmentalist are a rather vocal minority.
Genetic diversity, both plant and animal, is a valuable commodity that is in decline due to humans reducing habitat.This isn’t debatable it is fact. Human water usage is reducing the amount of freshwater available on the earth and that is a fact. Human agricultural and industrial waste has changed the ph and oxygen levels of many bodies of water and it is verifiable fact. Just a few examples of issues that are solidly researched, understood, and accepted as true.
What is debatable is how dangerous these impacts truly are and even if it is as dangerous as some claim if the price is worth paying. Just because something has a high cost doesn’t mean it isn’t worth paying for.
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
What is debatable is how dangerous these impacts truly are and even if it is as dangerous as some claim if the price is worth paying. Just because something has a high cost doesn’t mean it isn’t worth paying for. [/quote]
If it isn’t dangerous - then any impact is not really an impact beyond that of simply living.
No one is denying that humans use resources. We emit waste. we create waste. But - name an organism on this planet that doesn’t.
Maybe I should rephrase and say that I highly doubt human impact on the earth is more dangerous than that of any other organism/natural occurance on the planet.
[quote]Magnate wrote:
firebug9 wrote:
If he was really concerned about global warming, HE would do something about his own home first…
In fairness, his bill compared to homes of similar size in that area is quite small. Of course, it’s still a fucking huge energy bill and is quite hypocritical (I remember reading that a good portion of his home energy bill was paying for solar energy, but cannot remember where I read that or how credible it really was.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Humanity might be “sitting on a ticking time bomb,” but Gore’s home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.
Apparently Gore doesn’t want to limit his hypocrisy. Good for him, branching out into other areas of pollution. Bravo.[/quote]
Gawd, that’s terrible. 20,000 in royalties. You’re right he is a hypocrite.
Wait…usa today…issues…correction, no royalties, oh dear. I apologize Al for judging a little too quickly, my bad.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Magnate wrote:
firebug9 wrote:
If he was really concerned about global warming, HE would do something about his own home first…
In fairness, his bill compared to homes of similar size in that area is quite small. Of course, it’s still a fucking huge energy bill and is quite hypocritical (I remember reading that a good portion of his home energy bill was paying for solar energy, but cannot remember where I read that or how credible it really was.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Humanity might be “sitting on a ticking time bomb,” but Gore’s home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.
Apparently Gore doesn’t want to limit his hypocrisy. Good for him, branching out into other areas of pollution. Bravo.
Gawd, that’s terrible. 20,000 in royalties. You’re right he is a hypocrite.
Wait…usa today…issues…correction, no royalties, oh dear. I apologize Al for judging a little too quickly, my bad.
[/quote]
He no longer receives royalties because the mine is closed but he received royalties for YEARS.
That does not mean no royalties were ever paid but you are happy to make this false claim aren’t you?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Magnate wrote:
firebug9 wrote:
If he was really concerned about global warming, HE would do something about his own home first…
In fairness, his bill compared to homes of similar size in that area is quite small. Of course, it’s still a fucking huge energy bill and is quite hypocritical (I remember reading that a good portion of his home energy bill was paying for solar energy, but cannot remember where I read that or how credible it really was.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Humanity might be “sitting on a ticking time bomb,” but Gore’s home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.
Apparently Gore doesn’t want to limit his hypocrisy. Good for him, branching out into other areas of pollution. Bravo.
Gawd, that’s terrible. 20,000 in royalties. You’re right he is a hypocrite.
Wait…usa today…issues…correction, no royalties, oh dear. I apologize Al for judging a little too quickly, my bad.
He no longer receives royalties because the mine is closed but he received royalties for YEARS.
That does not mean no royalties were ever paid but you are happy to make this false claim aren’t you? [/quote]
He recieves no royalties. That’s from the correction and is in fact accurate. Like other small farms in the county the Gores recieved royalties on their mineral rights while the mines operated (duh) And obviously doing so wouldn’t make one a hypocrite.
Interest how they came up with that number, since the electric company never gave it out.
Anyways, read this article for the actual details on how Gore buys energy:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-27-gore-house_x.htm
And then there’s John Edwards:
http://www.hedgehogreport.com/index.php/7257
or Teddy K:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/26/sunday/main560595.shtml