NationStates Jolt Archive

Because it's not cheap enough to do so right now. Right now driving cars that run on gas, having A/C and heat run on Propane, & getting our power from a power source that does pollute (but is also reliable) is cheaper than going green. It's all about the money.

My topic now! :D

I don't see why people can't try to lead a cleaner, "more green" (I hate that term but its the best way to describe it) lifestyle. If global warming exists, and we live a "green" life, we don't exterminate ourselves. If global warming doesn't exist and we live a "green" life, we reduce pollution, reduce waste, and create a cleaner world.



I really hate when people use their disagreement with global warming as a justification for their wasteful lifestyle.
Why do people that disagree with global warming refuse to live cleaner? The technology is out there. I can't see any reason not too.

I think there's a few global warming topics already active. ;)

But sure, it would be nice if we were more "green." The key is doing it without expanding govenment power to the point where they're regulating every fart coming out of every dog, cow, or housecat around the world. :p

I think it's disingenuous to paint all of those who don't believe in man-made Global Warming as being deliberately wasteful and non-green for its own sake.

I don't buy man-made Global Warming. I think it's based on bad science and emotionalism. At the same time, I do think it's smart to get an efficient vehicle and use flourescent lights in your home.

What I object to is the Government trying to force the issue. Freedom means individual choice. If I choose to buy traditional light bulbs because they're less expensive or because I don't want to risk a mercury spill in my home, then I ought to be able to make that decision for myself.

If I choose to drive an SUV then that's my business.

In reality, I do use a flourescent light at home and my little car is pretty good on gas, but that's my choice.

I think there's a few global warming topics already active. ;)

But sure, it would be nice if we were more "green." The key is doing it without expanding govenment power to the point where they're regulating every fart coming out of every dog, cow, or housecat around the world. :p

The Department of Noxious and Environmentally Harmful Gases?

I think it's disingenuous to paint all of those who don't believe in man-made Global Warming as being deliberately wasteful and non-green for its own sake.



I wasn't implying all who disagree with global warming are excessive wasters but just that some excessive waster use their disagreement with global warming as an excuse. It just doesn't make sense.

I think it's disingenuous to paint all of those who don't believe in man-made Global Warming as being deliberately wasteful and non-green for its own sake.

I don't buy man-made Global Warming. I think it's based on bad science and emotionalism. At the same time, I do think it's smart to get an efficient vehicle and use flourescent lights in your home.

What I object to is the Government trying to force the issue. Freedom means individual choice. If I choose to buy traditional light bulbs because they're less expensive or because I don't want to risk a mercury spill in my home, then I ought to be able to make that decision for myself.

If I choose to drive an SUV then that's my business.

In reality, I do use a flourescent light at home and my little car is pretty good on gas, but that's my choice.

Better watch out, or Demented Hamsters will pull out a whole string of cites and detail why you are wrong about global warming!

I don't buy man-made Global Warming. I think it's based on bad science and emotionalism.

that's hilarious

What I object to is the Government trying to force the issue. Freedom means individual choice. If I choose to buy traditional light bulbs because they're less expensive or because I don't want to risk a mercury spill in my home, then I ought to be able to make that decision for myself.

If I choose to drive an SUV then that's my business.

a question - should you have the individual choice to own a nuclear weapon? why or why not?

I
What I object to is the Government trying to force the issue. Freedom means individual choice. If I choose to buy traditional light bulbs because they're less expensive or because I don't want to risk a mercury spill in my home, then I ought to be able to make that decision for myself.

If I choose to drive an SUV then that's my business.

In reality, I do use a flourescent light at home and my little car is pretty good on gas, but that's my choice.

No, see, the issue here is that it isn't your business. When your SUV fumes impact the health of the people, animals and plants around you, then it becomes their business (well, the peoples' anyway, we don't have a lot of politically active plants. Insert Bush joke here). And when a lot of people would like to choose their own enjoyment (say, those big SUVs) over the health and well-being of future generations, and ultimately the entire planet, then the government *does* have to get involved.

The Department of Noxious and Environmentally Harmful Gases?

It could be closer than it sounds. :p

If global warming exists, and we live a "green" life, we don't exterminate ourselves.

What makes you so sure that that's a good thing?

This couldn't have gone in any of the half dozen other global warming threads? It's not even a new take, it's rewording of posts in all of them.

This couldn't have gone in any of the half dozen other global warming threads? It's not even a new take, it's rewording of posts in all of them.

Yeah - that would've been easy, though. :p

Because it's not cheap enough to do so right now. Right now driving cars that run on gas, having A/C and heat run on Propane, & getting our power from a power source that does pollute (but is also reliable) is cheaper than going green. It's all about the money.

My topic now! :D

The thread stealer is right on the money, to use a poor pun.

I personally think that global warming is a load of bollocks (for a variety of reasons, mainly related to winter associated weather events occurring in all the wrong places at all the wrong times). Indeed, this is the latest craze, look what has happened about Peak Oil, that has suddenly fizzled out as more energy sources are being found and oil prices stabilise between $50 and $70 a barrel.

However, I do see the value in leading a "greener" lifestyle, to borrow the term. Being efficient means that you save money and frustration. Think about it in this way

An SUV driver pays a fortune in gas; but is there really a point to owning one? A Hybrid or Small Vehicle owner can practically achieve the same things in the City, for a much lower fuel bill.

A person that uses Eco-bags reduces the amount of plastic bags cluttering their house; makes the house tidier and reduces frustration.

A person that buys Eco-bulbs and makes their house more energy efficient sees the benefits in lower electricity bills.

These people save money which they can spend on other things.

[QUOTE=Alexandrian Ptolemais;12799572]I personally think that global warming is a load of bollocks (for a variety of reasons, mainly related to winter associated weather events occurring in all the wrong places at all the wrong times). Indeed, this is the latest craze, look what has happened about Peak Oil, that has suddenly fizzled out as more energy sources are being found and oil prices stabilise between $50 and $70 a barrel.However, I do see the value in leading a "greener" lifestyle, to borrow the term. Being efficient means that you save money and frustration. Think about it in this way

QUOTE]

Calling global warming 'bollocks' is your right, but saying that $50-$70 a barrel is stable is way off the mark

Because it's not cheap enough to do so right now. Right now driving cars that run on gas, having A/C and heat run on Propane, & getting our power from a power source that does pollute (but is also reliable) is cheaper than going green. It's all about the money.

My topic now! :D

all of which, government's policies can be thanked for encouraging.
policies of governments, whose real political proccessees and soverignty, for all practical purposes, have been usurped by a kind of defacto corporate mafia.

putting economics ahead of environment IS the collective suicide of the human species. it is not a problem that can be solved by one or two nobel souls turning off the occasional light switch.

energy and transportation POLICY are at the heart of it. both of which ascerbated by population levels. environmentally insensative logging practices are also a factor.

yet policy and even to a degree that corporate mafia, or at least the market for it, are culture driven as well. so the one thing we all can do, the most effective thing we, average joe and jane private citizens, is to honestly question and re-examine our cultural assumptions and shaired values.

this is so because togather they statisticly combine to create those incentives and markets that ultimately drive policy, even to a great degree in absolute monarchies or dictatorships. and all the more unambiguously so in any form of soverignty that pays lip sevice to democratic or representative principals.

your vote is ALWAYS counted at the cash register.
and how you actually believe in living will be reflected there, whatever you might otherwise wish or claim your values to be.

wind, solar, and narrow gauge railways propelled by stored energy or other clean(er then anything at present) (all that sort of thing) would be, could be, should be, as cheap or more so then then our current reliance upon oil coal and uranium. even the supply aspect of that equasion is directly and profoundly affected by policy.

oil and coal are only cheep because of policies that favor the industries involved in their extraction and proccessing.

wind, solar, micro-hydro, and other environmentally favorable alternatives, only as expensive as they still are, again, primarily (and in some cases entirely) do to disfavor in policy, thanks to policy being heavily influenced, if not outright dicatated, by powerfully vested economic interests.

=^^=
.../\...

Calling global warming 'bollocks' is your right, but saying that $50-$70 a barrel is stable is way off the mark

What would you consider stable then? Given that the prices of commodities will never be completely constant, I would say that $50 to $70 a barrel is stable. It's certainly more stable than the Kiwi Dollar, that is for sure.

Now I won't disagree nor will I agree with global warming. However, if one was to look at it objectively lets look back on the recent history of climate change.

Temperature levels are approximately on par with the levels of the 1940s. A little higher, that could do with various things, including more use of fossil fuels. But, you and I really do not have a real idea.

Back in the 1970s the craze at the time was “Global Freezing.” I will post a few links that have the original Newsweek, and other articles with regards to that topic. Global Freezing, as it were, reversed itself and began to rise in 1980 and continues until today.

Newsweek: 1975, from www.dennisdutton.com
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Wikipedia, it has many of the same parts from the Newsweek article, however it includes the graphs and babies down the science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Additionally, many scientists believe that global warming and global cooling have to do with the rate at which the oceans transfer heat energy from the equator further north. Take for example, the Little Ice Age, which occurred from the 16th to 19th centuries. The work done on the meteorological aspect points to a very little to no movement in the current that carries the heat towards the north.

A good synopsis is on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

What causes these shifts in the current is the amount of salt or fresh water in the North Atlantic. Many oceanographers believe that this same thing will occur once enough fresh water from the polar caps enters the Atlantic.

Live Science recently ran an article on the process, and the consensus of many scientists. I will search for a link and post it once I find it.

For these reasons, one must look at global warming skeptically. Personally, I think it is just another cycle. By the way, we have been overdue for a pole shift and an ice age for over a thousand years. So really, who knows what is going on. But certainly, for efficiency sake we should move to more efficient energy sources and uses for that energy.

No, see, the issue here is that it isn't your business. When your SUV fumes impact the health of the people, animals and plants around you, then it becomes their business (well, the peoples' anyway, we don't have a lot of politically active plants. Insert Bush joke here). And when a lot of people would like to choose their own enjoyment (say, those big SUVs) over the health and well-being of future generations, and ultimately the entire planet, then the government *does* have to get involved.

I'd agree with you IF it could be proven CONCLUSIVELY that such was the case. Now, despite what Al Gore and his disciples want you to believe, that is NOT the case. If that changes, then you and I will be in agreement. Until then, we're not.

that's hilarious
Always glad to entertain.



a question - should you have the individual choice to own a nuclear weapon? why or why not?

No offense, but that's a ridiculous analogy.

But you get points for recycling! I've seen that same question posed in gun control debate threads.

The reason your analogy is ridiculous is because, I take it, you're suggesting that some degree of individual choice must be capped for the good of all. Driving an SUV is NOT like owning an H-bomb so whatever point that was supposed to be making isn't adding up.

No offense, but that's a ridiculous analogy.

But you get points for recycling! I've seen that same question posed in gun control debate threads.

The reason your analogy is ridiculous is because, I take it, you're suggesting that some degree of individual choice must be capped for the good of all. Driving an SUV is NOT like owning an H-bomb so whatever point that was supposed to be making isn't adding up.

its not an analogy at all. it is a question of distinctions.

I don't see why people can't try to lead a cleaner, "more green" (I hate that term but its the best way to describe it) lifestyle. If global warming exists, and we live a "green" life, we don't exterminate ourselves. If global warming doesn't exist and we live a "green" life, we reduce pollution, reduce waste, and create a cleaner world.



I really hate when people use their disagreement with global warming as a justification for their wasteful lifestyle.
Why do people that disagree with global warming refuse to live cleaner? The technology is out there. I can't see any reason not too.

So what about the people who acknowledge Global Warming, know that they are part of the problem, but really don't care?

GW doesn't bother me. Makes life more exciting, although I'm a little bummed the skiing will be worse.

I'd agree with you IF it could be proven CONCLUSIVELY that such was the case. Now, despite what Al Gore and his disciples want you to believe, that is NOT the case. If that changes, then you and I will be in agreement. Until then, we're not.

I don't 'believe' in Global Warming; I accept the scientific theory of it, and I did so long before Al Gore was championing it.

It could be closer than it sounds. :p
Winner of thread!!! :D

I don't 'believe' in Global Warming; I accept the scientific theory of it, and I did so long before Al Gore was championing it.

Mon amis.
*bows*

Better watch out, or Demented Hamsters will pull out a whole string of cites and detail why you are wrong about global warming!
Yeah! How dare I stoop to dragging up facts and quantifiable research when discussing science!

I need to stop that right now and stick to throwing the same meaningless talking points out over and over again and ignore all else.

Now I won't disagree nor will I agree with global warming. However, if one was to look at it objectively lets look back on the recent history of climate change.

Temperature levels are approximately on par with the levels of the 1940s. A little higher, that could do with various things, including more use of fossil fuels. But, you and I really do not have a real idea.

Back in the 1970s the craze at the time was “Global Freezing.” I will post a few links that have the original Newsweek, and other articles with regards to that topic. Global Freezing, as it were, reversed itself and began to rise in 1980 and continues until today.
Thing about those opinions/research re: Global iceage - it was mostly due to the massive drop in production worldwide in the 1920/30's. It took 40 years for that to start having an impact. Once production started picking up again from the 50's onwards...well, that's what we started feeling from the late 80's onwards. What we're doing now ain't going to effect the climate for another 20-30 years. Which, of course, also means any changes we make now won't be felt for another couple of decades.

I think it's disingenuous to paint all of those who don't believe in man-made Global Warming as being deliberately wasteful and non-green for its own sake.

I don't buy man-made Global Warming. I think it's based on bad science and emotionalism. At the same time, I do think it's smart to get an efficient vehicle and use flourescent lights in your home.

If I choose to drive an SUV then that's my business.
It stops being your business though if it starts having a negative impact on the environment. Driving a big-ass gas-guzzling SUV for no actual reason other than it makes you feel big certainly falls in that category. It pollutes the environment, reinforces American's dependence on Middle-East oil and endangers the lives of people who don't drive such big ugly tanks.

I'd agree with you IF it could be proven CONCLUSIVELY that such was the case. Now, despite what Al Gore and his disciples want you to believe, that is NOT the case. If that changes, then you and I will be in agreement. Until then, we're not.

What about all other negative effects on the environment basides global climate change? You seem to be ignoring them. Local pollution, for example? It is proven conclusively that your SUV fumes impact the health of the people, animals and plants around you.

And why not choose to err on the side of caution here? Better safe than sorry, no?

I can't just can't help but sigh at the 'Global warming is BS because it's raining outside' people, that sort of stupidity should be criminal.

I can't just can't help but sigh at the 'Global warming is BS because it's raining outside' people, that sort of stupidity should be criminal.

I am more the sort of person "Global warming is BS because it's snowing outside people, and first of all, you don't get snow here and secondly, it is at the wrong time of year"

I am more the sort of person "Global warming is BS because it's snowing outside people, and first of all, you don't get snow here and secondly, it is at the wrong time of year"

You're not really a different sort of stupid, it's a difference of degree.

I am more the sort of person "Global warming is BS because it's snowing outside people, and first of all, you don't get snow here and secondly, it is at the wrong time of year"

So you don't believe in climate change because the weather is behaving in a way it never used to at the wrong time of year.

Am I the only one who doesn't understand that logic?

well just to let everyone know i am god and u will all bow 2 me and join collin is god region or suffer on nation states now that being said seince i am god i know everything and knowing everything i know that there is no such thing as global warming so its a non isue god has spoken

So you don't believe in climate change because the weather is behaving in a way it never used to at the wrong time of year.

Am I the only one who doesn't understand that logic?
No.

well just to let everyone know i am god and u will all bow 2 me and join collin is god region or suffer on nation states now that being said seince i am god i know everything and knowing everything i know that there is no such thing as global warming so its a non isue god has spoken
Bow to you...well, considering my army alone is bigger than your entire population...I think not.

well just to let everyone know i am god and u will all bow 2 me and join collin is god region or suffer on nation states now that being said seince i am god i know everything and knowing everything i know that there is no such thing as global warming so its a non isue god has spoken

For a god you certainly seem to be having problems with grammar, spelling and punctuation.