The W
Views: 121302092
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
27.2.10 1435
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Kyoto when? Now!
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(2359 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Post (8 total)
Summer sausage
Level: 46

Posts: 93/443
EXP: 693696
For next: 18083

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 3724 days
Last activity: 3724 days
#1 Posted on 3.6.02 2250.38
Reposted on: 3.6.09 2253.38
In the last thread about global warming, the nay-sayers and ostrich-head-in-sand people argued "global warming is natural. It's been happening for thousands of years. Humans are just along for the ride." Well nah nah to you.

Click Here to read all about George Dubya Bush's report on the environment.

A few selected quotes:

"For the first time, the administration puts most of the blame for recent warming on human activity, pointing to the burning of fossil fuel that releases carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere ..."

``Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century ... (s)econdary effects ... include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semiarid regions to drought.''

"In the United States, changes over the next few decades are expected to put Southeastern coastal communities at greater risk of storm surges, prompt more uncomfortable heat waves in cities and reduce snowpack and water supplies in the West."

If an oilman like Dubya can come around and admit what's happening, there is some hope after all. Well, except for the whole "voluntary reduction of emissions" plan that is sure to work so well. Big corporations care about the environment -- like they care about their workers and care about the bottom line. Oh wait, I put that list in the wrong order.

Edit: Well I guess a leopard can't change his spots after all. Dubya has dismissed his own administration's report on climate change.

" 'I read the report put out by the bureaucracy,' Bush said dismissively Tuesday when asked about the EPA report, adding that he still opposes the Kyoto treaty."

The oilman knows better than EPA and NASA scientists I guess.

(edited by Gavintzu on 4.6.02 1533)
Promote this thread!
Level: 36

Posts: 245/255
EXP: 302962
For next: 5151

Since: 2.1.02
From: St Paul, MN

Since last post: 5182 days
Last activity: 5182 days
#2 Posted on 6.6.02 1239.48
Reposted on: 6.6.09 1240.31
Human arrogance is astounding. Yes, all these things are happening, but why is it we have to always assume it's becauseof us? We've has technology for almost 150-200 years. Out planet is 4 billion years old. Our Earth has slowly been warming up since the ice age, and nobody seems to get the fact that we've had machines for less time than mother nature has stopped to blink in her entire lifespam.
Lap cheong
Level: 78

Posts: 148/1495
EXP: 4298532
For next: 83713

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 690 days
Last activity: 614 days
#3 Posted on 6.6.02 1603.15
Reposted on: 6.6.09 1608.04
In the 70's, many scientists thought there was going to be another Ice Age. Scientists can be wrong. And besides, I'm sure back then many scientists disagee, just like right now, many scientists disagree with the conventional wisdom that is global warning. They just don't get any press, and probably not as much money either. I think many scientific theories are more based on what will get the most grant money instead of real, true science.

(edited by ges7184 on 6.6.02 1603)
Level: 53

Posts: 148/612
EXP: 1119256
For next: 37870

Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH

Since last post: 3438 days
Last activity: 3406 days
#4 Posted on 7.6.02 0018.52
Reposted on: 7.6.09 0029.01
If you don't think human pollution can affect mother nature, go visit a strip mine sometime, or better yet chernobyl. We as a species are capable of fucking things up in a very short amount of time. Even if it isn't human activity that's causing global warming, aren't the consequences of it MAYBE causing global warming enough to slow us down a little?

Imagine you go to your doctor. He tells you that at your current, high-paying job, you perform a task that around 75 percent to 80 percent of medical experts believe will lead to gene contamination which would inevitably cause mental retardation along your family line. Maybe not in your children's generation, but the chance will exponentially grow in further generations. 20 to 25 percent of medical experts believe that we can't discern whether or not this is true. The question is this, would you stay at that high paying job and possibly endanger future generations? Or would you take a lower paying job?
Big Brother
Level: 223

Posts: 851/17045
EXP: 165916358
For next: 2300200

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
#5 Posted on 9.6.02 1419.35
Reposted on: 9.6.09 1419.36
People who use hypotheticals to support their arguments tend to have very weak arguments. ;-)
Level: 93

Posts: 518/2217
EXP: 7763225
For next: 289615

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 15 hours
Last activity: 15 hours
#6 Posted on 9.6.02 1436.16
Reposted on: 9.6.09 1444.32
No. People who attack an arguments style instead of its substance tend to have very weak arguments (of course, I may have just thrown little self-contradiction into MY argument).

Besides, it was an analogy, not a hypothetical.

EDIT: because I had to look at the post I was arguing against to learn how spell argument.

(edited by MoeGates on 9.6.02 1540)
Level: 53

Posts: 155/612
EXP: 1119256
For next: 37870

Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH

Since last post: 3438 days
Last activity: 3406 days
#7 Posted on 9.6.02 1721.39
Reposted on: 9.6.09 1727.09

    Originally posted by CRZ
    People who use hypotheticals to support their arguments tend to have very weak arguments. ;-)

Even if you didn't like my analogy, I basically stated the meat and potatoes of how I feel above it. The analogy, I think, fits though. It's not like I'm pulling shit out of left field, like trying to compare environmental issues to Star Wars or the WWE.
Level: 68

Posts: 277/1084
EXP: 2654227
For next: 74587

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 3846 days
Last activity: 3842 days
#8 Posted on 9.6.02 1747.26
Reposted on: 9.6.09 1751.51

    Originally posted by astrobstrd

    It's not like I'm pulling shit out of left field, like trying to compare environmental issues to Star Wars or the WWE.

Perhaps you would win more support if you did.
Thread ahead: The Daniel Pearl Video
Next thread: Should We Rebuild The Twin Towers?
Previous thread: Paul Martin we hardly knew ye
(2359 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Kyoto when? Now!Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

©2001-2015 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.681 seconds.