Pages: 1 2

 

2007-06-11 07:56:49
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7210|Dallas
I have proposed this question numerous times in numerous threads on numerous forums and everytime I ask it, it goes ignored.  Why?  Perhaps it shows how idiotic the arguement is?  Perhaps it destroys the arguement?  Perhaps, maybe, really no one cares at all.  I don't know, but I'm making it at as obvious and as blatant a question as I can because, dammit I want it answered. 

The question is directed at all opponents of the global warming theory.  The question is as follows:

If in fact, global warming is false, why not go through the environmental protection guidelines that were proposed to reverse or prevent global warming anyways?  Through all of the debate, arguing and bickering, what difference does it make?  If we do these things we prevent global warming, if global warming in fact, turns out to be false, we are still improving the quality of our environment and making the earth a cleaner place to live.  So what is the major malfunction here?


Seriously.  Do the opponents of global warming just want the earth to be a shithole?  If not, why fucking fight this?  I don't get it.  Even if global warming is false, it's a fact that fossil fuels, non-biodegradable products, along with all the industrial chemicals that pollute the air, water and earth are indeed detrimental to the planet.  So why cutting back on these pollutants is a bad thing is beyond me.
2007-06-11 08:02:47
TGMaverick
Member
+16|6676
If you're talking about companies/businesses/corporations/industry/etc., it probably boils down to cost.  To them, there is simply no benefit to them spending more $ to reduce their emissions, especially if they are currently complying with EPA standards.

Now, as a individual, it's our responsibility to recycle and buy recycled materials whenever possible to avoid over-filling our landfills.  Also, maybe as individuals, we can change our spending habits and buy our consumables from those companies who are "green", or "Earth-friendly". 

It seems nowdays that it's not about doing the right thing, it's about the almighty dollar.
2007-06-11 08:02:56
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6988|Texas - Bigger than France
Basically because it involves additional costs to scrap the current standards and move to greener ones...
2007-06-11 08:06:44
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6965|Πάϊ
The cost. All the companies, all forms of industry would have to bear the major cost of becoming environmentally friendly. Thousands of jobs lost, huge salary cutbacks etc.
ƒ³
2007-06-11 08:16:02
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7047|132 and Bush

There is a reason Al Gore titled his movie "An Inconvenient Truth". It really comes down to paying for the changes. The cost just getting the products from point A to point B will most likely increase significantly. It's a high price to pay if it would not have an impact. That's the argument at least.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-06-11 08:32:16
chittydog
less busy
+586|7281|Kubra, Damn it!

I think it's a great idea. The worst thing that can happen is that the world ends up cleaner and less of us die from non-tobacco related lung cancer. I believe TheGrape has mentioned something like this too. Interestingly enough, this is the same argument a lot of the religious people on here use to justify their spiritual beliefs.
2007-06-11 08:35:03
zeidmaan
Member
+234|6861|Vienna

Its perfectly understandable that big businesses dont want to spend money on cleaning up their shit, thats why they fight the idea of global warming and of man influence on the environment in general. What I dont understand is why many "common" people sing the same song.
2007-06-11 08:35:55
chittydog
less busy
+586|7281|Kubra, Damn it!

oug wrote:

The cost. All the companies, all forms of industry would have to bear the major cost of becoming environmentally friendly. Thousands of jobs lost, huge salary cutbacks etc.
There will be a cost to the companies, but it won't shatter the economy as some people may believe (not suggesting you're saying that). For every job that's lost to a company, there will be at least one more created in the industry that creates/supports green technology. Oh noes, oil companies start losing money, but solar & wind energy suppliers will start booming. The jobs will be there, people just may have to have someone else signing their paychecks.
2007-06-11 08:49:00
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7067|London, England
Global Warming or not. We need to reduce our dependency on Fossil Fuels for the simple fact that they aren't infinite. Recycling plastics, having solar panels and all that is also there to get rid of dependency on it, because when it runs out we're forked. You can deny Global Warming, you can't deny the fact that fossil fuel is finite.

Personally i can't wait for the day, hooray. The ME will no longer be important.
2007-06-11 08:49:18
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6803|CA, USA
It sounds like a great thing idealistically to try and preserve the environment.  Practically as many have mentioned it becomes a cost issue. 

Everyone talks about the 'corporations' having to fund the cost.  This cost will trickle down to the consumers.  i'll do my part as long as it doesn't negatively impact my lifestyle severely. 

Do you feel ok with paying this money?  keep in mind that if you do this, 5 other people show up with their hands out.
2007-06-11 08:54:36
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6625
I wonder if anyone knows that we are nearing the end of the life cycle of planet earth. I have read a ton about global warming and its possible outcomes. On a the level of space and time, our earth is very old in terms of age of planets. Some scientists predict that the earth will be a rock floating in space in a few hundred thousand years. This is universally accepted among most scientists. Nothing is going to stop this from happening and humans are not capable of stopping the life cycle of a planet. Maybe in few hundred thousand years, people will be so far ahead of us in intelligence that they can prolong the dying planet, im sure our current intelligence level compared to the future will make us look like cavemen.

Anyhow, no matter what we do for global warming now will change that this planet is nearing its end of its natural life cycle. Of course doing things to give our children and our children's children clean air and water is a good thing but our future ancenstors better look for another place to live. A few hundred thousand years is really just around the corner and its inevitable. Wrap your brain around that one. Or how about in about 10 million years our Sun will expand and swallow earth completely and turn us into space dust...again in terms of space time....its right around the corner. I hope our ancestors are able and smart enough to go somewhere else and prolong the human race.
2007-06-11 08:59:47
RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|7014|Oxford

Cougar wrote:

If in fact, global warming is false, why not go through the environmental protection guidelines that were proposed to reverse or prevent global warming anyways?  Through all of the debate, arguing and bickering, what difference does it make?  If we do these things we prevent global warming, if global warming in fact, turns out to be false, we are still improving the quality of our environment and making the earth a cleaner place to live.  So what is the major malfunction here?
The cost. We can afford the changes to our lifestyle, India etc can't. Why should they either; we got to where we are by polluting and raping resources, let them have the chance to do it while the west cleans up it's act. It'll be their turn in 50 years or so. There's plenty of time, water world is a long way off.
2007-06-11 09:06:17
[pt] KEIOS
srs bsns
+231|7099|pimelteror.de

Cougar wrote:

So what is the major malfunction here?
The malfunction is in the opponents brains. You might discuss about the global warming theory - but no one can deny the fact, that our way of life and our waste of energy creates massive pollution and destroys our environment.
2007-06-11 09:11:41
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6988|Texas - Bigger than France
Even if it costs more, I'm willing btw
2007-06-11 09:18:06
[pt] KEIOS
srs bsns
+231|7099|pimelteror.de
you have to invest money in future technology, to stay on top tomorrow. it might cost a lot today, but the profit will be doubled tomorrow... but that´s the real problem. there is no will for responsible planning and investment.
2007-06-11 09:19:38
jord
Member
+2,382|7124|The North, beyond the wall.
You could say if Global warming was true that the damage has already been done and we should just live normally.
2007-06-11 09:29:46
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7207

I have answered it before.  But here we go again.

I like conserving energy, not littering, etc.  My problem is we still have no firm understanding of weather.  We cannot even predict it because it is way too fluid.  For example, 50% chance of rain.  WTF is that?

When people rule out weather and say it is all SUV's and light bulbs, I have a problem with that.  How can you rule out something that you do not understand?
2007-06-11 09:30:23
motherdear
Member
+25|7097|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)

Kmarion wrote:

There is a reason Al Gore titled his movie "An Inconvenient Truth". It really comes down to paying for the changes. The cost just getting the products from point A to point B will most likely increase significantly. It's a high price to pay if it would not have an impact. That's the argument at least.
we can easily do a lot of small things, if we convert to a hybrid form of bio diesel we can reduce our emissions by 30% and it's only a small thing you got to adjust with a wrench and it can run on the bio diesel. and if the bio diesel on got 10% bio in it you don't have to adjust at all, and it saves us a lot because the bio diesel is a lot cheaper. in myth busters they also showed that they could run a diesel car entirely on bio diesel (non-hybrid) but it's recommended only to go to 10% bio diesel since you got to clean the filters once in a while without the small adjustment to the engine. but the adjustment can easily be done in the factories without higher cost, and they get a better reputation by the greener engines and therefore properly better sale figures.
2007-06-11 09:41:53
topal63
. . .
+533|7164

usmarine2005 wrote:

I have answered it before.  But here we go again.

I like conserving energy, not littering, etc.  My problem is we still have no firm understanding of weather.  We cannot even predict it because it is way too fluid.  For example, 50% chance of rain.  WTF is that?

When people rule out weather and say it is all SUV's and light bulbs, I have a problem with that.  How can you rule out something that you do not understand?
Good god man... STOP  already! Local Weather is not Global Climate. Local weather patterns and CO2 (radiative forcing in the IR spectrum & feedback mechanisms, etc: unnatural Global Warming); these (2)-things have nothing to do with each other on a daily basis. One is the dynamic on a day by day basis, the other is, more or less, an observable average: indicating overall effects & larger broader trends.
2007-06-11 09:43:12
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7207

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

I have answered it before.  But here we go again.

I like conserving energy, not littering, etc.  My problem is we still have no firm understanding of weather.  We cannot even predict it because it is way too fluid.  For example, 50% chance of rain.  WTF is that?

When people rule out weather and say it is all SUV's and light bulbs, I have a problem with that.  How can you rule out something that you do not understand?
Good god man... STOP  already! Local Weather is not Global Climate. Local weather patterns and CO2 (radiative forcing in the IR spectrum & feedback mechanisms, etc: unnatural Global Warming); these (2)-things have nothing to do with each other on a daily basis. One is the dynamic on a day by day basis, the other is, more or less, an observable average: indicating overall effects & larger broader trends.
Good god man...... local weather is driven by global weather patterns.
2007-06-11 09:59:20
topal63
. . .
+533|7164

usmarine2005 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

I have answered it before.  But here we go again.

I like conserving energy, not littering, etc.  My problem is we still have no firm understanding of weather.  We cannot even predict it because it is way too fluid.  For example, 50% chance of rain.  WTF is that?

When people rule out weather and say it is all SUV's and light bulbs, I have a problem with that.  How can you rule out something that you do not understand?
Good god man... STOP  already! Local Weather is not Global Climate. Local weather patterns and CO2 (radiative forcing in the IR spectrum & feedback mechanisms, etc: unnatural Global Warming); these (2)-things have nothing to do with each other on a daily basis. One is the dynamic on a day by day basis, the other is, more or less, an observable average: indicating overall effects & larger broader trends.
Good god man...... local weather is driven by global weather patterns.
That is not Global Climate: specifically the unnatural Global Warming trend (due to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and its affect on the world's oceans: disturbing the PH in the top 200m). Re-introducing carbon (CO2) back into the environment at a very rapid rate (burning fossil fuels, carbon removed from the environment, trapped beneath the Earth's surface for a rather long time) is not Local Weather patterns.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-11 09:59:47)

2007-06-11 10:01:33
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7207

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

topal63 wrote:


Good god man... STOP  already! Local Weather is not Global Climate. Local weather patterns and CO2 (radiative forcing in the IR spectrum & feedback mechanisms, etc: unnatural Global Warming); these (2)-things have nothing to do with each other on a daily basis. One is the dynamic on a day by day basis, the other is, more or less, an observable average: indicating overall effects & larger broader trends.
Good god man...... local weather is driven by global weather patterns.
That is not Global Climate: specifically unnatural Global Warming trend (due to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and its affect on the world's oceans: disturbing the PH in the top 200m). Re-introducing carbon (CO2) back into the environment at a very rapid rate (burning fossil fuels, carbon removed from the environment, trapped beneath the Earth's surface for a rather long time) is not Local Weather patterns.
Some people are saying nasty weather is the cause of humans right?
2007-06-11 10:06:40
djphetal
Go Ducks.
+346|6781|Oregon
I could not agree with you more, Cougar. An aunt of mine who lives in the south and is rather conservative said "Global Warming is a farce. People only talk about it because they don't like big businesses, but big businesses are good and let America have things as cheap as they do."
That is almost exactly what she said... I couldn't really respond, because my family down there would ostracize me for talking back to an elder... damn "southern manners... but I was thinking "holy crap! you are TOTALLY missing the point! This goes beyond politics and 'business' and 'America'... you spend hours a day cleaning your home and freshening the air here to make it presentable and comfortable! We are fucking up our house, essentially, and you don't fucking care because you can buy a Glade Plug-In for 2 fucking dollars at fucking Wal-Mart?! FUCKING CHRIST!"
2007-06-11 10:07:18
topal63
. . .
+533|7164

usmarine2005 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Good god man...... local weather is driven by global weather patterns.
That is not Global Climate: specifically unnatural Global Warming trend (due to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and its affect on the world's oceans: disturbing the PH in the top 200m). Re-introducing carbon (CO2) back into the environment at a very rapid rate (burning fossil fuels, carbon removed from the environment, trapped beneath the Earth's surface for a rather long time) is not Local Weather patterns.
Some people are saying nasty weather is the cause of humans right?
Sort of, sure some people, while warmer Weather in the tropics can increase a hurricanes strength (they intensify when moving over warming water), the hurricane's path cannot be predicted accurately (or how many storms a season will have exactly in a given year). Global Climate = some increase in strength for (any or all) hurricanes (that form). Weather = the actual movement and # of storms, on a daily basis, and/or # of storms per year (that cannot be predicted: "..that's the Weather for ya").

Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-11 10:08:50)

2007-06-11 10:07:37
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7212|UK
The reason being is people in charge of large businesses think of one thing. Money.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard