08 Jul 07
Originally posted by MerkIsn't that awefully presumptive?
Isn't that awefully presumptive?
It's definately optimistic.
That optimism is much easier to understand than the 'destroy it out of spite!' position you two seem to be pushing.
So... you disagree that people have any effect on climate. That's wonderful for you. You're presented nothing that resembles a sensible arguement thus far. In fact, in a previous thread, your buddy here was challenged to produce such a thing, offered up a string of links that he either didn't read at all, or only read the bits that made his position stronger ignoring that they were, by and large, either not actual scientific papers or were baldly opinion pieces constructed of unverifiable data. And when challenged... he has yet to present an answer.
At the least the 'idiots' you so deride have their opinion riding on the backs of scientists doing actual science.
What does your ride on?
08 Jul 07
Originally posted by DtBNice job of deliberately misrepresenting my position. Try your hack sht with someone else.
[b]Isn't that awefully presumptive?
It's definately optimistic.
That optimism is much easier to understand than the 'destroy it out of spite!' position you two seem to be pushing.
So... you disagree that people have any effect on climate. That's wonderful for you. You're presented nothing that resembles a sensible arguement thus far. In fact, in ...[text shortened]... on riding on the backs of scientists doing actual science.
What does your ride on?[/b]
08 Jul 07
Originally posted by Dace AceYeah, i heard somewhere that , if Mcdonnalds cut the size of their straws by an inch, their carbon footprint would drop by millions of barrels, not to mention the plastic that would not be throwing toxins into the atmosphere.
I think everyone is missing the biggest contributor...animal production. The process of producing meat, milk, eggs, etc...far exceed what the total of transportation puts out. Its odd that the talking heads focus on oil, but do not bash Mcdonlds?
http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm
They would also have to cut the size of their cups by an inch too, or i would forsee a glich in the plan, but you get the point 😛
08 Jul 07
Originally posted by Dace AceAnimal production is part of the whole C budget of the planet. (Of course, being pedantic, you could argue the same about oil and coal, albeit over a far longer time scale).
I think everyone is missing the biggest contributor...animal production. The process of producing meat, milk, eggs, etc...far exceed what the total of transportation puts out. Its odd that the talking heads focus on oil, but do not bash Mcdonlds?
http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm
Oil is what's copping the blame though, because it's introducing C which hasn't been in the atmosphere (or terrestrial C cycle) for the last couple of hundred million years.
08 Jul 07
Originally posted by DtBThank you.
[b]Isn't that awefully presumptive?
It's definitely optimistic.
That optimism is much easier to understand than the 'destroy it out of spite!' position you two seem to be pushing.
So... you disagree that people have any effect on climate. That's wonderful for you. You're presented nothing that resembles a sensible arguement thus far. In fact, in ...[text shortened]... on riding on the backs of scientists doing actual science.
What does your ride on?[/b]
08 Jul 07
Originally posted by MerkYes it is presumptive, but it is a justification for whatever carbon footprint the concerts claimed. (I do think that such concerts are a gimmick and question their worth to raising awareness, I wonder how many concert-goers will remember the reason they went a month down the line) But at least there are people trying to do something positive, even if I personally see it as a bit of a misguided method.
Isn't that awefully presumptive?
On the other hand, one would have hoped that such publicity stunts wouldn't be needed at all, but when I came across spastigov and yourself, I realised there actually WERE people who thought that way despite all evidence to the contrary. Kind of a justification for the concerts on its own.
Oh, and spastigov, I am still waiting for your response to the post in the other thread.
08 Jul 07
Originally posted by Dace AceI think you are also missing the biggest contributor😛
I think everyone is missing the biggest contributor...animal production. The process of producing meat, milk, eggs, etc...far exceed what the total of transportation puts out. Its odd that the talking heads focus on oil, but do not bash Mcdonlds?
http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm
Cradle to the grave the inefficiencies surrounding buildings are our biggest problem (IPCC 2007).
09 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonAhhh argryson there you are! And which post was then? Been so many. Post away!
Yes it is presumptive, but it is a justification for whatever carbon footprint the concerts claimed. (I do think that such concerts are a gimmick and question their worth to raising awareness, I wonder how many concert-goers will remember the reason they went a month down the line) But at least there are people trying to do something positive, even if I pers wn.
Oh, and spastigov, I am still waiting for your response to the post in the other thread.
Oh and by the way, when I came across you and a few others who can't think for themselves, I realised there actually WERE people who could fall for the biggest hoax in history despite all evidence to the contrary.