L
liberational
Guest
I think your confused. Non-renewable resources mean that once the resource is gone, it is gone forever.
Everyone on the planet, regardless of their religion should respect this fact.
- Status
Everyone on the planet, regardless of their religion should respect this fact.
L
liberational
Guest
Great point!
Who cares about future generations! It’s all about me me me me me me me me me and ME!
T
thomfra
Guest
Have you followed the link? Read the documents yet?
T
thomfra
Guest
Hi, Sorry for the late response. Here is a less inflamatory link… I think the link I copied was from a book “why the world hates americaa” or something like that. Please don’t think I am anti US. I have living and worked there and had a great time! loved the people. Anyway…have a read. Plus the other link to I posted.
globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
K
KingAlfred
Guest
“Keep in mind that there are those, particularly in politics, who would use scare tactics of “global warming”, trotting out all sorts of “scientific evidence”, in order to advance their political position and power.”
Do you really believe God designed our atmosphere to be filled with C02? Why would He do such a thing? What about depletion of the ozone layer and the gradual sizzling of the Planet by the Sun, as a result. The science is in; global warming is destroying our habitat.
Do you really believe God designed our atmosphere to be filled with C02? Why would He do such a thing? What about depletion of the ozone layer and the gradual sizzling of the Planet by the Sun, as a result. The science is in; global warming is destroying our habitat.
T
thomfra
Guest
You know Caesar517, that was an interesting article. But I don’t think anybody should listen to any **one **source on the topic. You need to look at the breadth of research as described in the link I sent you.
I agree that we should not run around with doomsday predictions. Scaremongering rarely helps. But an independent body has been set up to review all of the research which has been done, and found a “high probability” that global warming is man made and will continue if we don’t do anything about it.
I am not quite sure what motive people would have to reject this. (or not read it for that matter).
T
thomfra
Guest
Here’s some interesting information on the man who wrote that article. Always check the motives of the author!
mediamatters.org/items/200703150012
Carter identifies himself as a “founding member” of conservative Australian think tank Australian Environment Foundation (AEF). A June 13, 2005, article in the Australian Canberra Times reported that, upon its launch, the “Australian Environment Foundation’s registered office and principal place of business is listed as right-wing lobby group, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA),” which according to an August 9, 2003, Inter Press Service report, is funded by “mostly mining, oil, tobacco and energy companies.” The IPA’s funders reportedly include “Western Mining Corporation, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil), the top fifteen electricity companies - BHP, Shell, Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, Clough Engineering (and) Telstra (telecommunications company).”
C
Caesar517
Guest
I’m sorry I haven’t really been in this discussion, my classes are demanding right now. I haven’t had a chance to follow either of those links you gave me.
Maybe I can get around to it sometime today.
Maybe I can get around to it sometime today.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
This is exactly the kind of comment from the environmentalists that makes my head spin…
Take oil, for example- if I was an environmentalist, and believed that burning oil was so destructive, wouldn’t I look forward to the day when the last drop was burned?
After all, the sooner we use it all up, the sooner people will have to figure out something better, right?
On the other hand, if I believed that oil was the bane of the planet, and that burning even a single drop more was a sin against mother earth, I wouldn’t want future generations using it any more than the current generation- so I certainly wouldn’t use the “don’t use it all or it will be gone forever” rationale.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
As I said before, in the 1970’s scientists were proclaiming that “the science is in- global cooling is destroying our habitat” based on observing gradual temperature declines from 1940-1970. If we had listened to them, one of our poles would likely still be covered in black ash-“Keep in mind that there are those, particularly in politics, who would use scare tactics of “global warming”, trotting out all sorts of “scientific evidence”, in order to advance their political position and power.”
Do you really believe God designed our atmosphere to be filled with C02? Why would He do such a thing? What about depletion of the ozone layer and the gradual sizzling of the Planet by the Sun, as a result. The science is in; global warming is destroying our habitat.
Before that, scientists declared global warming trends in 1935, and global cooling trends before that in 1924. My point is that the science is not in- that’s one of the big problems in this debate. Scientists don’t know enough about all of the things that affect global weather patterns to be able to claim infallibility- they don’t even have a comprehensive list of all the things that affect our environment, much less how those things affect it.
For example, did you know that right now scientists believe that the sun is at the peak of an 8000 year warming cycle? Is it possible that what we think is “global warming” is actually caused by “solar warming?” independent.co.uk/news/science/ray-of-hope-can-the-sun-save-us-from-global-warming-762878.html
The science is in that the Earth is warming? Science has also discovered that Mars is warming at the same rate as the Earth…
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
The science is in that global warming is melting the glaciers? Science also says that volcanic activity has been linked to glacier ice melting…
iht.com/articles/2008/01/20/europe/climate.php
All we know is that the planet has warmed and cooled repeatedly throughout its history- there were global ice ages and global warming periods long before human beings were even on the planet.
Scientists don’t know for certain why the earth has gone through massive environmental changes in the past, they don’t know the pattern of these changes, how long they take to occur, or how to predict them- much less what to do about it if one were to happen. They also don’t know if we are in a massive climate change right now, or if we are simply experiencing a normal period of warming, which will be followed by a normal period of cooling, and so forth.
The bottom line is that the science is definitely not in on Global Warming.
M
mesurman
Guest
Oscarthecat,
You the man, Well said and all true. Look at geologic history everything you said is all in there.
T
thomfra
Guest
I think you have misunderstood the poster:
At the moment, we don’t have a renewable energy source which can cover our energy needs in their entirety. Even nuclear is a non-renewable (despite being essentially C02 free apart from mining and transport emissions). So what we have we must use wisely.
We don’t need to burn fossil fuels at the rate at which we burn them today (by driving cars around by the million in mega cities when we could have better public transport) for example. And yes, while they are used, and damage the environment then we should use them sparingly!!!
Fossil fuels are a resource like any other. There are developments (such as C02 deponering) for example which can mean we use fossil fuels withouth the C02 effects).
It’s not about completely eliminating greenhouse gas release. That’s impossible. But we need to reduce it drastically.
Kyoto protocol for example is to reduce to greenhouse gases by 5.2% below the emission levels of 1990 by 2012.
T
thomfra
Guest
Oh so you are suddenly back posting again? I thought you had taken your bat and ball and gone home?
I’m still waiting for you to read and comment to the link I sent you, and give us all a specific answer as to what parts of the report you do not understand.
Or do you only read sources which reinforce what you want to believe?
M
mesurman
Guest
Me go home. No, I have to work for a living. Raising six children to be responsible citizens takes enormous amounts of time. I actually teach my children to be stewards of the land and use the resource and not abuse the resource.
I look at both sides of the issue and strongly believe that the “left” side of the argument is all hot air (pun intended) and has no scientific fact based information, all their data is what they (name removed by moderator)ut into their own computer programs and they state their findings as fact. My own experience and observations indicate no global warming. We are currently experiencing one of the coolest summers in decades, as I write it is 62 degress when it should be approaching 75 to 80 degrees, explain that will you. We just had the third snowiest winter in recorded history with over 120 inches of snow, even in late March the snow pack was over five feet deep.
Global Warming? The tone of your post still indicates your snobby attitude. Are you a scientist or just a flaming liberal? Either way there is NO Global Warming.
T
thomfra
Guest
But the link I sent you. What do you disagree with specifically about the findings of the organisation. Which parts do you disagree with specifically.
Sorry if I come across as snobby. I don’t like to bring up academic credentials because they tend to be a bit of a discussion killer.
I am not how libralistic viewpoint (if that is what one has if one is concerned about global warming) has much to do with weather patterns to be honest.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
No, I didn’t misunderstand the post. You didn’t understand my reply.
If you believe a resource will inevitably run out, then it is nonsense to say that we should conserve that resource so another generation will be dependent upon it. That is only postponing the inevitable, and by passing that resource onto a future generation we are only allowing society to continue to build on a bad foundation.
If you are opposed to the use of that resource in the first place, the you should look forward to the day when it is all gone.
By the way, I find it interesting that you bring up the Kyoto treaty-
You know that Kyoto is a complete failure as an environmental policy, right? Unless CO2 can be reduced by a “symbolically important expression,” whatever that means.
blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2007/10/24/british-scientists-kyoto-has-failed/
You do realize that the only thing that the globalists wanted Kyoto for in the first place was to lay the foundation to couple wealth redistribution to CO2 emissions, right? The Canadian Prime Minister even referred to Kyoto as a “‘socialist scheme’” designed to suck money out of rich countries."
cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html
T
thomfra
Guest
Yes, it has not achieved it’s goals. But it was a start, and about reversing the C02 emissions rather than increasing them. It was derailed by countries such as Australia and the US who wouldn’t sign the treaty or make an effort.
I used it as an example of why richer countries should reduce emission more than poorer countries.
So the link I sent - have you read it? Are all those scientiest just “globalist/socialist” (whatever that means)?
You said: “If you are opposed to the use of that resource in the first place, the you should look forward to the day when it is all gone” - I suggest you read my post again. You logic is flawed for obvious reasons.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Hmmm, so you blame the US for the failure of European countries to reduce their own CO2 emissions?
Do you see any flaws in that logic?
T
thomfra
Guest
No, they are not to blame. But some international solidarity can go a long way. And when the world’s biggest polluter doesn’t sign up to the program it doesn’t help the process now does it.
Other countries set an example. Take Norway, they have a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050.
Compare the efficiency of European (and Japanese) cars to those of the US for example.
Why can those countries make progress but not the USA?
- Status