 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - If you haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth", DO IT. |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES                   Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Vyper No, we're not the cause. But we are exacerbating it. And if you're going to argue global warming as a point and say we're no tthe cause just use "global climate change". Given how it is going to impact our kids, I like to call it catastrophic. |
|||
ibz10g Spiny  Since: 08-10-06 From: Altoona, Iowa Last post: 6324 days Last view: 6324 days |
| ||
| I'll admit, there is plenty of evidence supporting global warming. And a lot against it. But I have better things to do than be preached to by a man who claimed he invented the internet. | |||
MathOnNapkins  1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Why must you make this about Al Gore when clearly it has nothing to do with him? If it was Charleton Heston would it make the message any more valid? Even many Democrats don't like Al Gore and think he's a douche, but that is pretty irrelevant to this debate. | |||
|
ibz10g Spiny Since: 08-10-06 From: Altoona, Iowa Last post: 6324 days Last view: 6324 days |
| ||
| Al Gore to too much of an environmental nutjob. People don't want to listen to him.
Although, even if it was anyone else, I still wouldn't care. |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ibz10g I'm sorry, but you're clearly an idiot. That "invented the internet" comment was totally misquoted by the conservative commentariat. Basically he referred to the leading role he played as a Senator in the early days, in getting the legislative and financial support necessary to make the internet what it is today. He was one of its big early advocates in political circles, and the comment he made referred to this. The fact that anyone still believes this ridiculous furphy speaks very poorly of the press in America. |
|||
|
ibz10g Spiny Since: 08-10-06 From: Altoona, Iowa Last post: 6324 days Last view: 6324 days |
| ||
| I'm the least political guy you'll ever meet. I wasn't listening when he was misquoted about funding the internet. If I was, I probably wasn't old enough to understand it anyways. I still don't understand politics, but that's enough for me to decide that I don't like it. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ibz10g Then why don't you use this magical invention of Al Gore's that you love so much to crawl around the internet for a few hours here and there to get a grounding in politics and other issues before gabbing off non-sense? kthxbai |
|||
|
ibz10g Spiny Since: 08-10-06 From: Altoona, Iowa Last post: 6324 days Last view: 6324 days |
| ||
I'd thank you if you were to not bash my politcal opinion. Listen, people have different beliefs. I think you could respect that. I'm not quite sure what you think I'm trying to exp |
|||
|
MathOnNapkins 1100 In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
So do you actually have an opinion on this matter? You say PSA is bashing your "political opinion" but let's look at what's happened.
Originally posted by ibz10g contrast this with Originally posted by ibz10g furthermore Originally posted by ibz10g So, to sum it up, the second quote seems to indicate you have a passing interest in the topic of Global Warming, the third post says you don't. The second quote says you discount Al Gore's opinion on GW b/c "claimed to invent the internet" which while clearly a gigantic exaggeration, is partially substantiated by his record. But in the first quote I listed you clearly retract this statement. So what exactly did you mean? I'm looking at your replies to PSA but all it looks like is rambling. |
|||
|
ibz10g Spiny Since: 08-10-06 From: Altoona, Iowa Last post: 6324 days Last view: 6324 days |
| ||
| No. I don't really like Al Gore. But I'm not going to tell people not to listen to him because of that.
Although there are people that don't want to listen to him anyways. |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6282 days |
| ||
| ibz10g - It's the message, not the messenger, that's important. The ideas should sink or swim on their own merit regardless of who said them. I did'nt really have a very high opinion of Al Gore either until well after his presidential run, but lately he's been talking alot of sense. | |||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| This is all I have to say.
We can't even accurately forecast the weather a week from today. Why do we believe that we can understand what is going to happen 10, 20, 50 or even 100 years from now. It's arrogance. Nothing more. |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| We aren't predicting the weather, we're predicting the climate.
Very big difference. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| I move that people who confuse "Weather" with "Climate" be banned from opinions. | |||
|
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Arwon: go fuck yourself.
Dracoon: not really a big difference to me. But thanks for coming out. |
|||
beneficii Broom Hatter Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Whoa, there was some flaming the last couple posts. I'll close it tonight for a little while to let things cool down a bit.  |
|||
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon  Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6285 days |
| ||
| I'd like to second that none of us are scientists, and therefore cannot judge the current climate situation. We can only listen to the actual scientists who have devoted their whole lives to this study. The people in Antarctica digging up ice from prehistoric times recording CO2 levels are the people we should be listening to. Not politicians, conservative or liberal talk show hosts or underqualified college professors. I now go on to exp I watched that youtube video that college professor made trying to discredit global warming. Although the video did not complete his argument, what I did see was very weak and raised some questions. His argument about Libertarians trying to pass environmental legistlation to control people's civil liberties is completely and utterly ridiculous. Why would Libertarians want to control what people do for seemingly no reason? If he offered some sort of sinister motive for this argument, then perhaps it would hold some water. People interested in this supposed crisis simply want to control CO2 emissions to save our environment. The notion that environmental laws are meant to limit people civil liberties is ridiculous and extremely innacurate. I cannot think of one single example of this, and if you can... please share it with me. I can see this hurting some businesses perhaps. They would actually have to be responsible for the harmful emissions they release. Poor babies. (Not just CO2 emissions, which aren't necessarily toxic but naturally occuring. I'm talking about other kinds of toxic harmful pollution as well.) I think at this point it would prove more profitable for auto companies to switch over to environmentally friendly cars. Many people are aware of the impact they may be having on the environment with their cars, but are unable to change this impact because the technology is still for the most part unavailable or unaffordable for the most of the population. It would create a whole new industry, new jobs, and reduce our dependance on foreign oil. This would decrease American interests in the middle east and probably reduce tensions between America and many mideastern countries. Even if you don't believe in global warming, you at least have to support an effort to reduce our dependance on foreign oil. It would prove beneficial to American bussiness, foreign policy and perhaps even the environment. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Yeah. You see, I'm really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY in favour of having strong anti-pollution legislation. You know why? This is why. Forget for a moment that it is in the Caucus region of Europe. Forget that it is about the Soviet legacy. It just shows that pollution in an area that gets economically depressed (and when I've been on road trips through West Virginia and see old ex-mining towns...I can tell you that those people would get as much help as these ones) is really scary. This may not have to do with global warming, but it shows you the immediacy of the danger that pollution poses. | |||
Young Guru Snifit  Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6286 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Here here, I totally agree with the two preceding posts. Whether or not you believe that global warming is real or not, caused by man or just natural, the issue of pollution still exists. The difference is, unlike with the fear of global warming, which will ultimately affect everyone on the planet, pollution can, in general, be relegated to areas that those in power can turn a blind eye to. Pollution therefore boils down to a moral dillema, is it ethical for those who produce and consume to allow their waste to be dumped on people in less fortunate situations? Most would say no, that's not fair, but those that maintain the books and budgets will do whatever is necessary to keep revenue high and costs low. This results in the current situation where corporations and governments have done very little to prevent wide spread pollution.
I still have hope for a better future because companies are starting to listen to those that are calling for change. Take the auto industry, adding to the list of fuel efficient technology found in electric hybrid vehicles compaines, like VW, are testing out new ways to use diesel fuel (diesel does burn dirtier than standard petro in the US but it also produces a lot more power which means that an equivalent volume can be used to send a car much greater distances) in their new Rabbits and reduce the exhaust that those systems produce by altering exhaust systems and efficiency in the engine. Other methods like e85 that uses 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent petrol are being used by companies like mitsubishi to create a more fuel efficient Evo. The thing is, unlike in the past, where these systems were placed in test vehicles that would never see the light of day, companies are creating vehicles that are viable options for consumers and have equivalent abilities as current petro cars. Unlike the Prius (I'm not trying to say it's a bad car, but it does not have the same power that most compacts have, yet I still think it was revolutionary design and toyota did a good job marketing it) these new vehicles have comprable power so people can have a car that is better for the environment and still be able to have that 400 hp engine. And if we really want to see some change we need to readjust our thinking on how we generate electricity. The time has come to switch from burning carbon fuels to more enviornmentally friendly means. This means that the government (and oil companies, but that's just wishful thinking to think that those that have the greatest ability to improve energy production actually would) needs to put more money into research on improving solar cells, wind turbines, and other natural energy sources. Also, the US needs to start implementing 2nd stage refinement (not sure it that's the technical term, that's what my modern physics teacher called it) of nuclear fuel so that nuclear plants can take spent fuel and rerefine it to make the material useable again (that'll never happen because to do that the facilities would need centrifuges capable of taking standard unused nuclear fuel and making it into fuel that is closer to weapons grade material, when is the US going to get over the fear of nuclear fuel, never mind the fact that almost every other nuclear power nation uses the technology). The basic problem with energy is that the only people capable of fully developing these new methods in a relatively short time frame (20 years or so) are the government and current energy producers and for current producers there's no incentive to switch because they're making insane profits with their current methods. So take away the great fear of the world becoming uninhabitable due to global warming and the issue still remains, our current lifestyle in the developed world is creating copious amounts of pollution and those that have the most influence are doing very little to stop it. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6282 days |
| ||
| Maybe when launching things into space becomes more affordable we could just send the nuclear waste on a one way trip to the sun? I dont think it would hurt anything there. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - If you haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth", DO IT. |
| |
