Al set to pick up his Nobel Prize

Garfield1966 said:
Perhaps your reading comprehension is off today. I do not recall advocating homicide anywhere in my post (perhaps I missed it and you could point it out to me?). I do recall advocating that if our existence on the planet is causing an adverse and possibly irreversible affect on the planet, that perhaps we should do all possible to try and stem, if not reverse the changes. Does that not sound like a reasonable idea to you? Or are you one of those me first and screw the rest type of people?
Click to expand...
Well, let's see...
Twice you said the problem was that there are 9 billion people.

"How can 9 billion people not have an adverse affect on the planet we inhabit?"
"So if one of you yaa hoos can explain to me how 9 billion people (and growing) cannot have an adverse effect on mother earth, I am all ears."

You didn't mention that at least half of those people are burning high sulfur coal in primitive furnaces to heat their homes, generate power, etc....
You didn't mention that the world's lungs (the rain forests) are being cut out in slash and burn policies...
You said the problem is the number of people, and that that number is growing.
SO! If the problem is the number of people, and we need to correct the problem, then I ask you, who stated the problem, how many do we need to kill, and what is the best way to do it?
BTW, the world population is approximately 6.574 billion, not 9 billion, but for you and your propensity to exaggerate, you came pretty close.

Populations:
China - 1.325 billion = 20.1% world population
India – 1.138 billion = 17.2% world population
United States – 302 million = 4.6% world population
Indonesia – 236 million = 3.6% world population
Brazil – 191 million = 2.9% world population
Mexico – 107 million = 1.6% world population

Ok, I answered your question, but you never answered any of mine:
How much of Earth's atmosphere is carbon dioxide?
How much of that is human caused by artificial means?
Is the earth's environment a static or a dynamic system?
Can you name one alternative to fossil fuels that the other environmentalist nuts would accept? (Careful, several groups just moved to block a wind farm in the Gulf.)
Are you one of the nuts who were screaming about global cooling 30 years ago?
How much CO2, water vapor, and other greenhouse gasses were put into the atmosphere by the fires in California that were made *much* worse by irrational environmental restrictions forced by nutcase activist groups like the Sierra Club?
How many people are going to die during next spring’s mud slides caused by those same policies?
What kind of car(s) do you and your family drive?
How do you heat/cool your home?
Do you know where your electricity comes from?
 
MMB said:
How much of Earth's atmosphere is carbon dioxide? 375 ppm per Wiki
How much of that is human caused by artificial means? No idea since CO2 is CO2. They don't have ID tags to say where they came from
Is the earth's environment a static or a dynamic system? Dynamic
Can you name one alternative to fossil fuels that the other environmentalist nuts would accept? (Careful, several groups just moved to block a wind farm in the Gulf.) What the enviro groups accept or don't is irrelevant. Alternates need to be concidered that are less damaging and make us less dependent on the ME
Are you one of the nuts who were screaming about global cooling 30 years ago? I was 10, did not care
How much CO2, water vapor, and other greenhouse gasses were put into the atmosphere by the fires in California that were made *much* worse by irrational environmental restrictions forced by nutcase activist groups like the Sierra Club? Sierra club seems to advocate the removal of fuels and advocates controlled burns to help with the problem http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/fire.asp
How many people are going to die during next spring’s mud slides caused by those same policies? What policies?.
What kind of car(s) do you and your family drive? Diesel and a gasser. Diesel i my wifes who does a bulk of the driving for her job (home health care) and mine gets driven just too and from work (12 miles each way). Cant' afford newer cars and there is no public transportation in my area.
How do you heat/cool your home? Natural gas / electric Added solar screens, extra foot of insulation and a new AC system (16 seer I think) 2 years ago. Windows/doors sealed ceiling fans go 24/7. Installed Fluorescence lights last year and will dispose of properly when they fail
Do you know where your electricity comes from? According to Cirro, wind and water.
Click to expand...


As for knocking off part of the 6.6 billion (sorry about the error in my count. Not sure where I got the 9 billion in my head from) again, I never advocated that. Do you think that perhaps I could have been implying that the actions of some of the 6.6 billion on the planet are irresponsible and if those same people would not wast water, turn off lights when not in use, keep tires inflated, turn the ac up when leaving, burn cleaner ... etc that our foot print might be a little less and that if we all do it that our impact will be substantially reduced? Nah, of course I meant to knock them off. I did not mention the items you site because they are a result of the 6.6 billion people on this planet trying to eek out a living. We need to advocate birth control, we need to encourage countries to start switching over to cleaner fuels, we need to advocate substantially higher mileage requirements for all vehicles, we need to start building public transportation systems in all major cities. Conservation of our natural resources. And the list goes on.

By the way, my question was if anyone thought 9 billion people did not have an effect on the environment. I never said that 9 billion was too many or too few. I merely stated that the people on the planet were having an effect on the planet. You assumed it was too many and opted to get rid of some of them. I did not ask for a solution so you answered a question not asked. What I offer now is an alternative solution that the population may be a bit more agreeable to. Don't you think? Also, in another 45 years at current population growth rates we will be at 9 billion so I really was not all that far off in that regard.

I am pretty sure that I will survive my life with out experiencing too much of what we have screwed up. I have no children so what happens after I die is of little concern. Your kids if you have them will have to suffer. I am trying to do my part as best I can to make a smaller foot print on this planet so that future generations will not have me to blame for their crisis.
 
Veritas said:
Consider the source.

Wikipedia:
Click to expand...

I did......

Your source is questionable at best

"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."

— Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I had heard for weeks from teachers, journalists and historians about "the wonderful world of Wikipedia," where millions of people worldwide visit daily for quick reference "facts," composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge — and sometimes by people with malice.
Click to expand...

This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.

I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious "biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable. There was more:
Click to expand...

Hey honey,how about bringing a little truth and virtue to the debate?


Thanks for playing....
 
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Show me where the Wikipedia biography of Deroy Murdock is in error.
Click to expand...

The point is (and it just flew over your head) why would someone with such outstanding

credentials as yourself stoop to using such a bogus source as Wikipedia to belittle and

assassinate people with opposing views?
 
delldude said:
The point is (and it just flew over your head) why would someone with such outstanding credentials as yourself stoop to using such a bogus source as Wikipedia to belittle and assassinate people with opposing views?
Click to expand...
Show me where the Wikipedia biography of Deroy Murdock is in error.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #24
OK,

Garfield raises the point about what sort of impact 6 bil plus people or so have upon the planet. It's a legitimate point to begin from.

But I would caution that every living thing has an impact upon this planet and how that future might play out because all living things exist in an inter-connected process of being. I always feel a bit uncomfortable when anthropic assumptions are bantered about like concret facts without first acknowledging our own meager place in the larger scheme of living things. If ya still don't follow me, just remember that the hominid legacy is a short one in the larger time scheme by which this planet exists and operates. I'm not gonna say that we should not be concerned, or that we should not try to leave a lesser environmental impact upon ma Earth. But I'm downright uncomfortable making any assumption that we humans hold the key to the Earth -- we don't.

Still having trouble following me? Where is George Carlin when you need him? Now he's an impartial source who will tell it like it is. Carlin would put us in our place and remind us that there's bigger things happening than greenhouse indigestion as proffered by Mr. Gore and others. I guess I'm aruging on behalf of perspective above all other things.

As to the science of Earth and greenhouse gases et. al. Bottom line is that science does not have all of the answers (yet). Now indeed they've got some data which testifies to the human footprint in this thing. But in terms of possessing a solid understanding of the big enchilada mother Earth, science comes up just as short as folks who ignore global warming. Now I'm not gonna knock the enthusiasm with which some scientists assert that imminent danger lies ahead. But I will implore them to "show me the money" before I agree to have taxpayers fling booku bucks at emotionally driven science.

The one thing which the article I link to does emphasize is how repeating an unproven idea can create a momentum of certitude which in fact does not really exist. That's not a product of spin from left or right. It's a clear observation about the climate of discussion and the fog which obscures the true scientific bedrock as it exists beneath our feet at this moment and how quickly some people will buy into it without thinking deeply about the issue.

One thing that science does know, is that this here planet has gone through all sorts of warming and cooling trends over hundreds of millions of years time. There's lots of sources of this warming, and I'll concede that this very interesting lifestyle by which we humans live has indeed had a small part in the process. Then again, whenever I look up at the moon ( and ask how the craters got there ) or read about solar objects floating around in space, how do we know for sure from where the next dramatic portent of change may arise from.

Perhaps someone should plink Gore in the ear with a pea-shooter. Then he'll write a book about imminent cosmic collisions & can create a new trendy frenzy.

Barry
 
delldude said:
Not a credible source.
Click to expand...
Show me where the Wikipedia biography of Deroy Murdock is in error. It is a list of facts, not opinions. Which ones are inaccurate? Knowing his background enables the reader to put Murdock's jaundiced opinions in perspective.
 
Veritas said:
Show me where the Wikipedia biography of Deroy Murdock is in error. It is a list of facts, not opinions. Which ones are inaccurate? Knowing his background enables the reader to put Murdock's jaundiced opinions in perspective.
Click to expand...

Seems its fact when it suits your fancy! :rolleyes:
 
Veritas said:
Show me where the Wikipedia biography of Deroy Murdock is in error. It is a list of facts, not opinions. Which ones are inaccurate? Knowing his background enables the reader to put Murdock's jaundiced opinions in perspective.
Click to expand...

This is of course your opinion....and of course whether opinion or fact from our listed sources

it doesn't qualify as far as you are concerned...Go back to your well.

SOURCE: Wikipedia:Veritas
 
delldude said:
This is of course your opinion....and of course whether opinion or fact from our listed sources it doesn't qualify as far as you are concerned...Go back to your well.
Click to expand...
Show me where the Wikipedia biography of Deroy Murdock is in error. Which facts are inaccurate?

Is he not a conservative syndicated columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service and a contributing editor with National Review Online?

Is he not a Media Fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a Senior Fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington, Virginia?

Was he not a veteran of the 1980 and 1984 Reagan for President campaigns and a communications consultant with Forbes 2000, the White House bid of publisher Steve Forbes?

Did he not say on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" on September 16, 2007 that he believes Saddam Hussein was involved in perpetrating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America?

Did he not claim that Hussein and his Baathist government, as well as al-Qaeda and the Taliban, provided "material support" to the September 11 conspirators?

Did he not develop the HUSSEINandTERROR.com website?

Did he not call waterboarding "something of which every American should be proud"?

Thus far you have failed to dispute any of these assertions or anything else from the Wikipedia article. That must mean that the article I quoted is factually accurate.
 
Veritas said:
Show me where the Wikipedia biography of Deroy Murdock is in error. Which facts are inaccurate?

Is he not a conservative syndicated columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service and a contributing editor with National Review Online?

Is he not a Media Fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a Senior Fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington, Virginia?

Was he not a veteran of the 1980 and 1984 Reagan for President campaigns and a communications consultant with Forbes 2000, the White House bid of publisher Steve Forbes?

Did he not say on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" on September 16, 2007 that he believes Saddam Hussein was involved in perpetrating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America?

Did he not claim that Hussein and his Baathist government, as well as al-Qaeda and the Taliban, provided "material support" to the September 11 conspirators?

Did he not develop the HUSSEINandTERROR.com website?

Did he not call waterboarding "something of which every American should be proud"?

Thus far you have failed to dispute any of these assertions or anything else from the Wikipedia article. That must mean that the article I quoted is factually accurate.
Click to expand...

Not a credible source
 
jerseyfinn said:
Still having trouble following me? Where is George Carlin when you need him? Now he's an impartial source who will tell it like it is. Carlin would put us in our place and remind us that there's bigger things happening than greenhouse indigestion as proffered by Mr. Gore and others. I guess I'm aruging on behalf of perspective above all other things.

Barry
Click to expand...


Who owns you Americans?

-WARNING- Graphic Language :p

How to create an Angry American :up:

Courtesy of the Red White and Blue (The Angry American) :up: :up:

B) UT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top