Originally posted by agrysonI like to be cynical and a heat merchant. There is nothing better in this world than getting the panicked even more worked up. As the saying goes, give into temptation, it may not pass your way again.
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 ...[text shortened]... wn.
Oh, and spastigov, I am still waiting for your response to the post in the other thread.
In application, I'm more conscious than most or perhaps all of the people I know that claim to care about the environment. In fact, I would be willing to bet that my home energy bills are lower than any other home in the city I live in. Thruthfully, its far more fun to raz than to preach.
Originally posted by SpastiGovAbsolutely positive. Hell, you make yourself look like an idiot more than anyone else.
You sure about that?
I do think global warming IS happening and it IS our fault, but i think Gore is a tool and i hate the environmentalist type student buffoons who push it as a socio-religious thing.
The only people i hate more are the ones who stick their head in the sand and ignore the pure science behind it.
But considering no-one here argues the science and only pulls up half @rsed biased websites it's no point arguing it.
You however, come across as that guy in school who thinks he is funny and thinks everyone else thinks he is funny so it encourages him, but really he is just an idiot.
Originally posted by SpastiGovThe really long one as a response to your nzclimate thread, I haven't checked yet, you may have by the time I post this, next on my list.
Ahhh argryson there you are! And which post was then? Been so many. Post away!
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.
As for your little paraphrase, I would LOVE a scrap of evidence for your views to be given. I've only see one paper even approaching acceptable, which itself had too many inconsistencies for me to regard as evidence. By inconsistencies, I mean logical loops, conclusions drawn out of thin air, or figures given without showing how they were arrived at despite their importance, not the "I don't like what it's saying" kind of reason to ignore evidence.
If it's a hoax, which is an arguable point if provided some evidence, then provide that evidence. I don't care if it's from some unheard of guy in the himalaya's or whatever, provided it's thorough in its approach I'm happy. By thorough I simply mean that it doesn't have logical loops or inconsistencies. Believe it or not, I'm being about as objective as you're going to find here.
Originally posted by MerkNice job of deliberately misrepresenting my position. Try your hack sht with someone else.
I like to be cynical and a heat merchant. There is nothing better in this world than getting the panicked even more worked up. As the saying goes, give into temptation, it may not pass your way again.
In application, I'm more conscious than most or perhaps all of the people I know that claim to care about the environment. In fact, I would be willing to bet ...[text shortened]... than any other home in the city I live in. Thruthfully, its far more fun to raz than to preach.
Apologies. It certainly wasn't my intent to misrepresent you. That's just the impression I took from your attitude and comments.
Honestly, in your support of Spastigov, you got yourself tied to him in my head. Which is unfair to you, I suppose. I may well have misunderstood his position as well, but he's made reamarkably little effort in any sort of conversational direction. He's too busy repeating what idiots anyone who disagrees with him are.
I just don't share your enjoyment of cynicism and helping to further polarize an already ridiculously unthinking society. You may not see or accept that that's what you're doing, but by your own words you enjoy 'getting the panicked ever more worked up.' It's about as far from productive as one can be.
In application, I'm more conscious than most...
Good to know, though it makes the other that much more strange to me.
Thruthfully, its far more fun to raz than to preach.
Maybe so. I've seen remarkable little of that, preaching, here though. Mostly I've seen people either vaguely irritated or making a vain attempt to achieve intelligent conversation on the topic.
Originally posted by Dace AceIt would be a hard case to make, I think, to say that our present cattle industry produces more CO2/methane than the millions-billions(?) strong herds of large animals we've seen destroyed in the last few hundred years. Our industries might exceed those numbers, I've not looked up numbers for either, but I would tend to doubt it.
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
Though, admittedly, meat production, as opposed to crop production of the same protein content is horribly inefficient and I imagine does have a pretty big impact.
I think the worst apect of such industries isn't that they produce so much waste, but that they do it in such huge concentration vs what natural herds of the same size would do.
Originally posted by knightwestWhich would you rather have, an pretty view, or electricty? Both? Maybe nuclear power is your answer?
Only on Saturday I drove through the German state of Thueringen, on my way from Berlin to Luxembourg, and was appalled at the number of windfarms.
They were everywhere, as far as the eye could see, and really ruined the landscape.
I hated it!