MMGW
-
Exactly, more evidence of humans having an impact on the environment, I'm glad you agree.
Are you stereo typing everyone who doesn't share the world wide hysteria? I've never said that mankind has no effect on whatever difference the co2 level makes.
I just keep repeating that if it is actually that important to anybody that they should really be vegan and walk wherever they go. Or they should STFU and quit bothering me about it.
WSS
Are you stereo typing everyone who doesn't share the world wide hysteria? I've never said that mankind has no effect on whatever difference the co2 level makes.
I just keep repeating that if it is actually that important to anybody that they should really be vegan and walk wherever they go. Or they should STFU and quit bothering me about it.
WSS
Sorry, I thought it was DieHard who posted it. But the point remains, it's because of us humans that we have these issues. And yes, everybody going vegan would have a big impact on it, but it's not exactly likely! Then again, if we start taxing meat from these animals for example to make it difficult to afford, so that less is consumed, eventually the total cow population will decrease and their effect will decrease with it.
So yes, it's a valid point. But I love a good steak
-
Are you stereo typing everyone who doesn't share the world wide hysteria? I've never said that mankind has no effect on whatever difference the co2 level makes.
I just keep repeating that if it is actually that important to anybody that they should really be vegan and walk wherever they go. Or they should STFU and quit bothering me about it.
WSS
Sorry, I thought it was DieHard who posted it. But the point remains, it's because of us humans that we have these issues. And yes, everybody going vegan would have a big impact on it, but it's not exactly likely! Then again, if we start taxing meat from these animals for example to make it difficult to afford, so that less is consumed, eventually the total cow population will decrease and their effect will decrease with it.
So yes, it's a valid point. But I love a good steak
Sorry, I thought it was DieHard who posted it. But the point remains, it's because of us humans that we have these issues. And yes, everybody going vegan would have a big impact on it, but it's not exactly likely! Then again, if we start taxing meat from these animals for example to make it difficult to afford, so that less is consumed, eventually the total cow population will decrease and their effect will decrease with it.
So yes, it's a valid point. But I love a good steak
Also, this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm
This may become the stock way to respond to MMGW questions in future - the facts seem to be nicely laid out for us there.
-
So you propose outlawing meet? Or at least forcing the prices so high that none but the richest Americans can afford it? And almost no one in the developing countries, correct?
I will answer for you of course I don't think you are proposing that and I'm not seriously asking the question.
As to the question from Woody who is bothering me about it? Well sir I'd say that the people who actually do want to make things like automobile travel and heating and cooling your home and manufacturing the items you want to buy outrageously expensive by piling on the taxes are the people who are bothering me. The people who wanted the United States to sign the Kyoto Accord. Those people woody. Not you, I don't think you take anything seriously beyond calling people idiots.
WSS
-
So you propose outlawing meet? Or at least forcing the prices so high that none but the richest Americans can afford it? And almost no one in the developing countries, correct?
I will answer for you of course I don't think you are proposing that and I'm not seriously asking the question.
As to the question from Woody who is bothering me about it? Well sir I'd say that the people who actually do want to make things like automobile travel and heating and cooling your home and manufacturing the items you want to buy outrageously expensive by piling on the taxes are the people who are bothering me. The people who wanted the United States to sign the Kyoto Accord. Those people woody. Not you, I don't think you take anything seriously beyond calling people idiots.
WSS
So you propose outlawing meet? Or at least forcing the prices so high that none but the richest Americans can afford it? And almost no one in the developing countries, correct?
I will answer for you of course I don't think you are proposing that and I'm not seriously asking the question.
As to the question from Woody who is bothering me about it? Well sir I'd say that the people who actually do want to make things like automobile travel and heating and cooling your home and manufacturing the items you want to buy outrageously expensive by piling on the taxes are the people who are bothering me. The people who wanted the United States to sign the Kyoto Accord. Those people woody. Not you, I don't think you take anything seriously beyond calling people idiots.
WSS
Of course, on the meat thing. But it's indicative - people won't make the necessary changes on their own because there's no incentive to - one person won't make the difference. So it's up to the policy makers to make the decisions en masse.
To be fair, the person most bothering me about it is cal
-
Also you know uni lateral action by the United States doesn't put a dent in whatever problem you guys perceive merely tends to bankrupt us.
Let us agree that there are a lot of injuries in the NFL. The AFC North has decided that we will no longer tackle our opponents. Who's with me Fellowes?
WSS
-
Also you know uni lateral action by the United States doesn't put a dent in whatever problem you guys perceive merely tends to bankrupt us.
Let us agree that there are a lot of injuries in the NFL. The AFC North has decided that we will no longer tackle our opponents. Who's with me Fellowes?
WSS
Also you know uni lateral action by the United States doesn't put a dent in whatever problem you guys perceive merely tends to bankrupt us.
Let us agree that there are a lot of injuries in the NFL. The AFC North has decided that we will no longer tackle our opponents. Who's with me Fellowes?
WSS
And that's the kind of defeatist attitude that causes the problems. Sure, if one country, even one as big and developed as the USA, makes the change, the impact is quite small. But if all countries make the change - probably involving ganging up on China and India at some point - then we can start to make progress in reversing the CO2 trend.
Pick whichever metaphor you like, along the lines of "all journeys start with a single step"
-
So that does kind of make it a de facto dictatorship, right? I mean by forcing people to do what you want through taxation. Kind of rubs human beings the wrong way don't you think? Especially those of us who cling to the fantasy of freedom. Well maybe not us but some of you guys.
And that is Cals job...... somebody has to do it. Unfortunately we do not have another Heck whose job it was to defend Obama in each and every instance. Oh well....
WSS
-
So that does kind of make it a de facto dictatorship, right? I mean by forcing people to do what you want through taxation. Kind of rubs human beings the wrong way don't you think? Especially those of us who cling to the fantasy of freedom. Well maybe not us but some of you guys.
And that is Cals job...... somebody has to do it. Unfortunately we do not have another Heck whose job it was to defend Obama in each and every instance. Oh well....
WSS
So that does kind of make it a de facto dictatorship, right? I mean by forcing people to do what you want through taxation. Kind of rubs human beings the wrong way don't you think? Especially those of us who cling to the fantasy of freedom. Well maybe not us but some of you guys.
And that is Cals job...... somebody has to do it. Unfortunately we do not have another Heck whose job it was to defend Obama in each and every instance. Oh well....
WSS
That's because Obama isn't right in every instance. Nor is David Cameron. So while I'll agree with the general philosophy, I'll disagree with some policies.
but anyway, yes, the best thing for the people is a benevolent, omniscient dictatorship. Unfortunately we're not smart enough to have someone like that to put in charge, so we go with whoever we think is best. That just happens to change frequently! What we call a democratic government isn't really that, it's democratically elected, then proceeds to tell us what to do. There's no point having a democratic vote on every issue because it's an infeasible system of government.
-
Defeatist? I would say realist. Yes we can certainly punish ourselves in order to punish China and India. You suppose someone else might think to take advantage of that by purchasing all their stuff from them?
Not to mention that we're talking about guys like you and me and woody and everybody who flatly refuse to take any action until we are forced to by the Great and Powerful Obama.
But to the journey and the one step gag you are correct. Digging to the Center of the Earth begins with a tablespoon of dirt.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Why would anyone dig with a tablespoon?
Also, props to working "The great and powerful Obama" into your last few posts.
So you propose outlawing meet? Or at least forcing the prices so high that none but the richest Americans can afford it? And almost no one in the developing countries, correct?
Woooooh broseph, slow down. I don't think he said any of those things. I am not sure why a tax = making it not affordable.
Those people woody. Not you, I don't think you take anything seriously beyond calling people idiots.
Oh man, you got me....
-
Why would anyone dig with a tablespoon?
Also, props to working "The great and powerful Obama" into your last few posts.
So you propose outlawing meet? Or at least forcing the prices so high that none but the richest Americans can afford it? And almost no one in the developing countries, correct?
Woooooh broseph, slow down. I don't think he said any of those things. I am not sure why a tax = making it not affordable.
Those people woody. Not you, I don't think you take anything seriously beyond calling people idiots.
Oh man, you got me....
Why would anyone dig with a tablespoon?
It's a metaphor
Woooooh broseph, slow down. I don't think he said any of those things. I am not sure why a tax = making it not affordable.
He actually answered that question himself in the negative, so I think we can assume it was tongue in cheek.
-
Woodrow asked me who is bothering me about it. The president is one of those people and I think I explained why. Of course Woody is an........
WSS
-
Hahahah, my bad, he answered it literally the next line, lol. Yep yep yep, my bad.
I know it is a metaphor, but it is a dumb one. It should be a shovel full or something. Your first dig in wouldn't be a tablespoon
-
Woody must be exhausted by now, with his two sentence, half assed replies. Nappy time woody. Here's your bottle.
-
Woody must be exhausted by now, with his two sentence, half assed replies. Nappy time woody. Here's your bottle.
Woody must be exhausted by now, with his two sentence, half assed replies. Nappy time woody. Here's your bottle.
Oh my god! So much content! I can't handle it!
I would never be able to post something that on topic and well thought out!
-
Defeatist? I would say realist. Yes we can certainly punish ourselves in order to punish China and India. You suppose someone else might think to take advantage of that by purchasing all their stuff from them?
Not to mention that we're talking about guys like you and me and woody and everybody who flatly refuse to take any action until we are forced to by the Great and Powerful Obama.
But to the journey and the one step gag you are correct. Digging to the Center of the Earth begins with a tablespoon of dirt.
WSS
Defeatist? I would say realist. Yes we can certainly punish ourselves in order to punish China and India. You suppose someone else might think to take advantage of that by purchasing all their stuff from them?
Not to mention that we're talking about guys like you and me and woody and everybody who flatly refuse to take any action until we are forced to by the Great and Powerful Obama.
But to the journey and the one step gag you are correct. Digging to the Center of the Earth begins with a tablespoon of dirt.
WSS
Of course nothing's going to happen overnight, but we need to start somewhere, setting an example. Once the rest of the world is doing its part (in what, 20? 50? years?) then the pressure on the emerging nations to cut back on the emissions and the rest will be great, and we could start taking legal action via the UN. Perhaps a little heavy handed, but perhaps necessary.
-
I think it's very strange, how so many fall in line with the alleged concern over this theory..like certain posters...ahem... believe that mmgw is a
wonderful do gooder kind of thing, a valiant "save the planet" rally cry that they buy into so fully.
Meanwhile, it really has huge, underlying ulterior motives driving it. That's why the mmgw boogers
want do desperately to quelch any and all debate, discussion to the contrary of their theory.
Because the theory, and acceptance of it, is imperative to accomplish their economic ends. It was
never about reality of gw, or gc, fluctuations of global climate.
It is about transferring wealth from those countries who are wealthy, to poor countries...' rulers.
Extortion racket. Read on, Chris - do you see any poor countries asking wealthy nations
for millions of trees to plant to combat CO2? Nope. Do you see any countries with vast rainforests...
stopping the destruction of said rain forests to combat CO2? Nope. Their rainforests are being cut down
for MONEY. And they can't use tree seedlings for MONEY, so they do not care. Read up on it.
Seriously, Chris. I am now bothering you, because Steve said I am responsible for saving our planet
from nonsense......
*******************************
UN climate talks fall apart as 132 countries storm out | The Daily Callerdailycaller.com/.../epic-fail-un-climate-talks-fall-apart-as-132-countries-s...โNov 20, 2013 - Poor countries pulled out of the United Nations climate talks during a fight over transferring wealth from richer countries to fight global warming.Poor Countries Push Rich Nations To Do More On Climate Change ...www.npr.org โบ News โบ WorldNov 20, 2013 - Delegates to the U.N. climate change conference in Poland from many of the world's poorer nations are asking wealthier countries to pay ...Climate Change Alarm Is A U.N. Extortion Racket - Investors.comnews.investors.com โบ IBD EditorialsโNov 21, 2013 - The global warming scare isn't about saving the planet. It's about transferring wealth from rich countries to poor countries and providing jobs ...Rich vs. poor: Divide deepens over who should pay for climate changewww.nbcnews.com/.../rich-vs-poor-divide-deepens-over-who-should-pa...โNov 20, 2013 - Delegates talk during a break in a plenary session at the 19th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ...U.N. climate change talks: it's really all about the moneycanadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59608โDec 2, 2013 - U.N. climate change talks: it's really all about the money, economy, finance, ... Delegates from developing countries, such as Ecuador's lead ... -
Defeatist? I would say realist. Yes we can certainly punish ourselves in order to punish China and India. You suppose someone else might think to take advantage of that by purchasing all their stuff from them?
Not to mention that we're talking about guys like you and me and woody and everybody who flatly refuse to take any action until we are forced to by the Great and Powerful Obama.
But to the journey and the one step gag you are correct. Digging to the Center of the Earth begins with a tablespoon of dirt.
WSS
Of course nothing's going to happen overnight, but we need to start somewhere, setting an example. Once the rest of the world is doing its part (in what, 20? 50? years?) then the pressure on the emerging nations to cut back on the emissions and the rest will be great, and we could start taking legal action via the UN. Perhaps a little heavy handed, but perhaps necessary.
You think we have 50 years? Well if so I'd say you are outside the range of predictions that I've seen posted by the guys who are really into this. Anyway I think we've already started. I do common sense things. I replace as many lite's as I can with LED. Recycle? Sure why not? But keep your eye on the population from 1900 to now and then look at the projection. If we are going to have twice as many people as we do now they will watch twice as many cars. If those cars are getting 30 miles to a gallon instead of 26 like they are now... Eating twice the meat drinking twice the water... Well do the math.Of course nothing's going to happen overnight, but we need to start somewhere, setting an example. Once the rest of the world is doing its part (in what, 20? 50? years?) then the pressure on the emerging nations to cut back on the emissions and the rest will be great, and we could start taking legal action via the UN. Perhaps a little heavy handed, but perhaps necessary.
PS you're a college grad or alumni right? When did you start to study and earnest for your finals? The day before? Like most of us... I remember learning my lines between my scenes! Haha
WSS
-
You think we have 50 years? Well if so I'd say you are outside the range of predictions that I've seen posted by the guys who are really into this. Anyway I think we've already started. I do common sense things. I replace as many lite's as I can with LED. Recycle? Sure why not? But keep your eye on the population from 1900 to now and then look at the projection. If we are going to have twice as many people as we do now they will watch twice as many cars. If those cars are getting 30 miles to a gallon instead of 26 like they are now... Eating twice the meat drinking twice the water... Well do the math.Of course nothing's going to happen overnight, but we need to start somewhere, setting an example. Once the rest of the world is doing its part (in what, 20? 50? years?) then the pressure on the emerging nations to cut back on the emissions and the rest will be great, and we could start taking legal action via the UN. Perhaps a little heavy handed, but perhaps necessary.
PS you're a college grad or alumni right? When did you start to study and earnest for your finals? The day before? Like most of us... I remember learning my lines between my scenes! Haha
WSS
You think we have 50 years? Well if so I'd say you are outside the range of predictions that I've seen posted by the guys who are really into this. Anyway I think we've already started. I do common sense things. I replace as many lite's as I can with LED. Recycle? Sure why not? But keep your eye on the population from 1900 to now and then look at the projection. If we are going to have twice as many people as we do now they will watch twice as many cars. If those cars are getting 30 miles to a gallon instead of 26 like they are now... Eating twice the meat drinking twice the water... Well do the math.
You are not even including into the countries that basically went from being nearly 3rd world countries 30-40 years ago to industrial powerhouses(india and china for example). Honestly until we find a legit way to replace fossil fuels such as oil in our most used transportation cars/trucks nothing is really going to change. People still need to move from point A to point B, and so does goods/merchandise.
-
I think it's very strange, how so many fall in line with the alleged concern over this theory..like certain posters...ahem... believe that mmgw is a
wonderful do gooder kind of thing, a valiant "save the planet" rally cry that they buy into so fully.
Meanwhile, it really has huge, underlying ulterior motives driving it. That's why the mmgw boogers
want do desperately to quelch any and all debate, discussion to the contrary of their theory.
Because the theory, and acceptance of it, is imperative to accomplish their economic ends. It was
never about reality of gw, or gc, fluctuations of global climate.
It is about transferring wealth from those countries who are wealthy, to poor countries...' rulers.
Extortion racket. Read on, Chris - do you see any poor countries asking wealthy nations
for millions of trees to plant to combat CO2? Nope. Do you see any countries with vast rainforests...
stopping the destruction of said rain forests to combat CO2? Nope. Their rainforests are being cut down
for MONEY. And they can't use tree seedlings for MONEY, so they do not care. Read up on it.
Seriously, Chris. I am now bothering you, because Steve said I am responsible for saving our planet
from nonsense......
*******************************
UN climate talks fall apart as 132 countries storm out | The Daily Callerdailycaller.com/.../epic-fail-un-climate-talks-fall-apart-as-132-countries-s...โNov 20, 2013 - Poor countries pulled out of the United Nations climate talks during a fight over transferring wealth from richer countries to fight global warming.Poor Countries Push Rich Nations To Do More On Climate Change ...www.npr.org โบ News โบ WorldNov 20, 2013 - Delegates to the U.N. climate change conference in Poland from many of the world's poorer nations are asking wealthier countries to pay ...Climate Change Alarm Is A U.N. Extortion Racket - Investors.comnews.investors.com โบ IBD EditorialsโNov 21, 2013 - The global warming scare isn't about saving the planet. It's about transferring wealth from rich countries to poor countries and providing jobs ...Rich vs. poor: Divide deepens over who should pay for climate changewww.nbcnews.com/.../rich-vs-poor-divide-deepens-over-who-should-pa...โNov 20, 2013 - Delegates talk during a break in a plenary session at the 19th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ...U.N. climate change talks: it's really all about the moneycanadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59608โDec 2, 2013 - U.N. climate change talks: it's really all about the money, economy, finance, ... Delegates from developing countries, such as Ecuador's lead ...I think it's very strange, how so many fall in line with the alleged concern over this theory..like certain posters...ahem... believe that mmgw is a
wonderful do gooder kind of thing, a valiant "save the planet" rally cry that they buy into so fully.
Meanwhile, it really has huge, underlying ulterior motives driving it. That's why the mmgw boogers
want do desperately to quelch any and all debate, discussion to the contrary of their theory.
Because the theory, and acceptance of it, is imperative to accomplish their economic ends. It was
never about reality of gw, or gc, fluctuations of global climate.
It is about transferring wealth from those countries who are wealthy, to poor countries...' rulers.
Extortion racket. Read on, Chris - do you see any poor countries asking wealthy nations
for millions of trees to plant to combat CO2? Nope. Do you see any countries with vast rainforests...
stopping the destruction of said rain forests to combat CO2? Nope. Their rainforests are being cut down
for MONEY. And they can't use tree seedlings for MONEY, so they do not care. Read up on it.
Seriously, Chris. I am now bothering you, because Steve said I am responsible for saving our planet
from nonsense......
*******************************
Standard list of google results.I think it's strange that "certain posters...ahem..." continue to disregard the science without even attempting to disagree with its findings in any way, and instead talk about how it's all made up by politicians. I couldn't care less what politicians are saying about it, I'm interested in what the science says, and it says we're going to burn! That was a joke, btw. The science of it has been researched basically endlessly, by people far more qualified to do so than you or I, and conclusions drawn that the vast majority of scientists agree with.
I wouldn't doubt for a second that people are trying to manipulate findings for their own personal gain, because that's the nature of people. For example, if you're the head of a large coal company, you might want to deny that there's any problem with burning it - while on the other hand investing in research on clean energy because you want to corner that market first, but not lose income in the mean time. Is it possible that people are using it to scare people in to giving them money? Probably. But I don't care about that, like I say, I'm interested in the science, not the politics, and the science is there to back it up.
As to the articles about poor countries cutting down rainforests etc, it's myopic capitalism at its best. The best thing in the short term for that country is to cut down the trees, sell the wood, plan crops/build things to get more money. Are you suggesting that we should follow the lead of the developing countries when it comes to global science, rather than they should follow our lead? What was it you were saying about the minority ruling the majority?
You think we have 50 years? Well if so I'd say you are outside the range of predictions that I've seen posted by the guys who are really into this. Anyway I think we've already started. I do common sense things. I replace as many lite's as I can with LED. Recycle? Sure why not? But keep your eye on the population from 1900 to now and then look at the projection. If we are going to have twice as many people as we do now they will watch twice as many cars. If those cars are getting 30 miles to a gallon instead of 26 like they are now... Eating twice the meat drinking twice the water... Well do the math.
PS you're a college grad or alumni right? When did you start to study and earnest for your finals? The day before? Like most of us... I remember learning my lines between my scenes! Haha
WSS
The flipside of developing countries that are becoming more industrialised and modern, therefore emitting more greenhouse gases is that the population growth slows down and, as we've seen in some developed countries, even start to become negative. That being said, it is a very real concern, and not just in terms of emissions. There are all sorts of issues with how to feed everyone, where everyone will live etc.
I don't believe that in 100 years cars will be using any kind of fossil fuel for power, and hopefully we'll have some sort of reliable clean energy capable of providing base usage capacity; plus, you'd like to think that by then, we won't be denying any problems, and people will be much more receptive to using things like solar panels and the rest.
Yes, I have a joint degree in Maths and CompSci, and a masters in finance. Generally, I allowed a couple of days per exam, which I found was sufficient, because the exam format was highly predictable and the questions formulaic. And yeah, there was no small amount of cramming after a morning exam in time for the afternoon exam!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better ๐
Register Login