Skip to comments.
Global Warming? A Misunderstanding with a dash of Lies
Me
| Today
| Me
Posted on 11/11/2002 4:48:58 PM PST by dila813
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-116 next last
To: pfflier
Well stated Freeper!
Today, Environmentalist is simply another term used by Socialists to hide their politics.
Every good Environmentalist 'knows" that all pollution is cause by greedy 'Big Business' Capitalism. By the mid 1970's, the USSR figured this one out and got very busy in Europe to create the Green Party.
Today, the Socialist party is alive and well here in America.
I continue to work in support of efforts that actually improve our environment in ways that actually work, instead of following some political agenda.
21
posted on
11/11/2002 5:49:57 PM PST
by
Hunble
To: dila813
Scientific Method being the key phrase. Only an arrogant and ignorant pseudo-scientist (realizing the world is as old as it is) would try to predict a trend based on data which has only been recorded for a scant 100 or so years.
22
posted on
11/11/2002 5:51:11 PM PST
by
yooper
To: T. Jefferson
The only scientific fact they have is that the Earth's surface temperature has increased by 0.5+ degrees since 1930 in the northern equatorial regions.
So you can say global warming is a fact but what does the term global warming mean? That is the question, if you find it means that based upon only scientific fact the temperature has risen around the globe in this region then its true, there is global warming.
Everything else is speculative, has the rest of the globe experienced similar rises in temperature?
What is causing it?
If the global climate models show the Temperature is going to increase what can we do about it. My position is nothing, so therefore if you believe the radical climate forecasts government should be doing something other than trying to reduce so called green house gases.
If you haven't heard, even the EU Space Admin said if the Kyoto treaty was implemented with every country in the world participating it would still fail to stop the projected rise in temperature predicted in these models.
23
posted on
11/11/2002 5:58:10 PM PST
by
dila813
To: dila813
I agree there is no such thing as Global Warming. That's why my perferred term is Gorebull Warnings, which is a proven phenonon.
To: Always Right
preferred....phenomenon....I should read prior to posting
To: dila813
You don't understand, Environmentalism is a religion now. I've never looked at it as such.
I am a conservationist not a environmentalist, this doesn't mean I am pro-pollution.
I suppose words can mean different things to different people. To me, a conservationist is one who desires to conserve that which we consume. An environmentalist is concerned with ALL of nature, not just that which we eat, drink, or breathe. It is of course well known that the food chain exist, and if we mess up any part of that chain, that which we consume will suffer as well. That is where I don't follow the logic of those who view "environmentalists" as some whacked out tree hugger. Of course there ARE people like that, but to me they are simply whacked out tree huggers...
Many of our fore-fathers were conservationists.
I believe they were that and more...
To: Always Right
Gore flatulence causes global warming?
27
posted on
11/11/2002 6:04:16 PM PST
by
dila813
To: pfflier
In contemporary context, the term environmentalist is associated with groups that burn homes under construction, burn or trash research labs, sue, not for merit,but to create obstruction, chain themselves to trees and damage personal vehicles because they do not fit their environmentally "correct" perceptions. To me, those who commit such acts aren't so much "environmentalists" as they are whacked out terrorists looking for a reason to rebel. Of course there ARE those who are mislabeled as being in league with these whackos, and it is not just them but all of us that suffer as a result..
To: FormerLurker
Here is the contrast, Environmentalist thinking is something that is relatively recent.
Conservationists for example support hunting to keep the population of animals in the wild healthy.
Environmentalists want humans to stay out of wild areas period regardless of the impact on the wild populations of animals. Environmentalist believe that humans always cause a negative impact on the Environment.
Bush is more a conservationist instead of a environmentalist when looking at his proposed forest management policy.
29
posted on
11/11/2002 6:09:44 PM PST
by
dila813
To: Hunble
To: dila813
Bush is more a conservationist instead of a environmentalist when looking at his proposed forest management policy. I'm all for allowing the lumber industry to harvest trees if they adhere to conservationist methods. What is lacking here though is a coherent policy towards polluters and the resulting toxic waste dumps created by them. If you look at post #30, you'll see what I mean..
To: FormerLurker
My wife and I are SCUBA divers, and each year we participate in a scientific survey of a Minnesota lake to study the growth of Eurasian Millfoil. This is a plant recently introduced to Minnesota, and has everyone's panties in a wad.
Simple scientific study, and about 100 divers participate each year. You are given a 1 foot square box of wood which you place over a grid and count how many EM plants are growing in that box. Continue that process over your designated area and report the results when you return back to the surface.
After a few years of doing this, I got fed up! One day, I returned to the surface with a bag filled with those weeds and reported a count of ZERO Eurasian Millfoil plants in my sector.
What the heck are we doing? Documenting how 'evil man' is destroying the evironment, or are we doing something about it?
Since my wife and I enjoyed SCUBA diving in that lake almost every weekend, care to guess what happened to the population of that plant?
Question: What was the important goal?
1) Remove the problem.
2) Document how evil man is?
32
posted on
11/11/2002 6:14:51 PM PST
by
Hunble
To: FormerLurker
Can't we have a sane policy though?
The liberals want us to use car seats and car booster seats out here in the west until our kids are 5+ years old.
Do you know how much room these seats take up?
If you are a family with two kids you don't have anymore room in your car for taking additional passengers. I have four kids, I have to drive a large vehicle just to fit them in.
Now the Liberals under the guise of environmentalism are trying to ban SUVs and to make large vehicles meet the same standards as compact cars. This will make these vehicles unavailable or too expensive for the middle class.
This is just another example of us being squeezed between radical policies.
33
posted on
11/11/2002 6:17:37 PM PST
by
dila813
To: Hunble
I think we should start by cleaning up those 33 sites that are heavily contaminated. You know, those superfund sites that have been defunded...
To: dila813
I think the government should get out of our private lives and concentrate on protecting us from polluters who dump dioxins, mercury, PCBs, and other such filth into our environment.
To: FormerLurker
I know about these dumps so to speak. You know, people were not aware of the problems these chemicals cause.
I remember my parents and my grand parents just dumping oil down the drain or on the lawn where they wanted to keep the weeds from growning. It just was not a big deal.
What we are doing today is appling our knowledge of these chemicals and using this to judge people from the past that did not have the benifit of this knowledge.
I hope people in the future will be kinder to us than you are being to them.
36
posted on
11/11/2002 6:22:13 PM PST
by
dila813
To: FormerLurker
I think we should start by cleaning up those 33 sites that are heavily contaminated. You know, those superfund sites that have been defunded... Sure, but can I do it MY WAY?
Giggle, if I was able to do it MY WAY, they would be long gone at a fraction of the costs.
37
posted on
11/11/2002 6:23:57 PM PST
by
Hunble
To: Hunble
Thats a good point, we have several super fund sites over where I live, they spent millions on doing a study and in the end they just dug up the first 10 feet of soil and put in gravel and a tank to drain water into the tank to be pumped into the river.
I could have done the same thing for less than 10k but it cost them millions.
It is a waste of money.
38
posted on
11/11/2002 6:26:26 PM PST
by
dila813
To: FormerLurker
Of course there ARE those who are mislabeled as being in league with these whackosThen it is up to "mislabeled" to clarify their objectives, methods and to disavow the "whackos". I have not seen this done nor any intent to do it.
39
posted on
11/11/2002 6:27:14 PM PST
by
pfflier
To: dila813
I hope people in the future will be kinder to us than you are being to them. People have long known that mercury causes ALL sorts of problems. They have known many things that they simply didn't care about. I'm not the one to judge them, their ultimate judge they will meet someday whom they will answer to.
I just want the crap they left behind cleaned up. And I'd like those who continue to dump such filth to stop it. Nothing more, nothing less..
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-116 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson