Page 2 of 3 <123>
Topic Options
#44452 - 11/25/10 10:55 AM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dutch Satanist]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
So, the climate changes. Hasn't it always? There are already 4 noted significant changes in a year. They call them seasons. They are so common they have given them names. Oh wait, you were talking about the aptly named man-made climate change. It's a myth. The Earth has always known macro-seasons like ice ages and polar shifts. We're overdue for one, by the way.

It always has, but where does it read I am not aware of it?
Can you proof the man-made climate change is a myth? As a scientist I simply would love to see the evidence. Facts are you probably can't since too much has changed already. I have my own opinion about that part which is that I simply don't know. We may have an influence, we may very well haven't. When I see the results of greenhouse gasses being pushed in the atmosphere and compare them with "normal" (what is normal?...) emissions then there is a slight difference in concentration. Does it have an influence? That's what I am asking myself; the easiest answer would be yes. But I prefer to wander what these are instead of directly blaming companies etc...

Admitted I like all the regulations to lower the emission levels. But thats from an esthetical point of view and not so much for the environment.

Also, the problem we are facing now (which you also seem to miss completely like most do) is not so much "the climate changes, how can we stop/slow it down?" but more "How are we going to survive and adapt?". This last option is the real problem.

 Quote:

Oh, we are causing the warming up of the planet? Are you sure? All the evidence you cite is anecdotal. It can also be explained by an impending ice age (where warming up of the planet is quite common before temperatures plummet down).

Perhaps you should try to learn to read. Did I ever say to take the cited sources at face value? Didn't I always mention I interprete numbers and reports differently then the average Joe, environmentalist and politician?

 Quote:
So, where do I stand on this climate change thing? I am indifferent. I refuse to change my lifestyle unless it suits me.

Your fair choice, but if you really were indifferent then why join the debate and pick out the global warming subject? It would be more wiser to actually know a thing or two about it and share the opinion of why. The only thing you achieved was barking a bit without any actual contribution.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44477 - 11/26/10 01:16 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dimitri]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
Can you proof the man-made climate change is a myth?


What!?

As a Scientist I am sure you are aware that you cannot prove a negative. When 'we' look out at the history of the world, we see cycles of warming and cooling throughout the ages. Most notably: the 'Ice Age' (the last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago), then the warming that followed, the warming period during the time of the Roman Empire, then the cooling that followed through the Dark Ages and Medieval period, then the warming during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment period. In fact, it is for 'YOU' to PROVE man's impact on the environment. Not that man cannot affect the environment, particularly in the case of industrial pollution, but you must prove it in every case.

If you say you have an elf in your pocket, and say "no you don't" you must show me to win your point. If you say man is causing Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change/Weather and I say "no we are not" then you must prove YOUR case. Get it? The is basic Aristotelian logic.

And.... if you are going to hang your argument around Greenhouse Gasses, then you must recognize that naturally occurring WATER VAPOR accounts for 60% or more of all GHG effects. Natural methane is the #2 GHG, with CO2 being a distant 3rd. And man's contribution to the CO2 portion of that equation is less than a third. In other words, man is contributing less than one third, of all GHG to the least influential GHG.

And it is not the West that needs to control it's emissions. Again, the Green movement is the last bastion of the Reds. Leftist ideology is driving the politics - not the science. If you really want to 'fix' the problem, the developing world is to blame - over population, unsustainable populations, almost no environmental regulation, and massive deforestation. Deforestation in the 'developing' world is responsible vast increases in CO2, water vapor, and methane. If you really want solve global warming, look at countries like China, India, and Brazil.

But is this what the Greens do? No, instead they worry about the American SUV and size of American homes. Again, solving root cause is NOT the the goal of the Greens - destruction of the American way of life is. Always has been, always will be.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#44479 - 11/26/10 02:17 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Fist]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
As a Scientist I am sure you are aware that you cannot prove a negative. When 'we' look out at the history of the world, we see cycles of warming and cooling throughout the ages. Most notably: the 'Ice Age' (the last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago), then the warming that followed, the warming period during the time of the Roman Empire, then the cooling that followed through the Dark Ages and Medieval period, then the warming during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment period. In fact, it is for 'YOU' to PROVE man's impact on the environment. Not that man cannot affect the environment, particularly in the case of industrial pollution, but you must prove it in every case.

It indeed is my job to do just that. But from what I think here it simply is refusing to open the eyes for the evidence that has been circling around for decades. If he is going to deny man-made climate change then I would like to hear his arguments and not some random bullshit sprouted from an uneducated mind from that matter. The sources are given, the references to books and hint to look up a wide variety of institutes in his country/state/city.. who just do that has been given to those interested in the subject.

If he refuses then I simply call it intellectual laziness and being close-minded. And now I would like you to ask to back-off if there are going to be assumptions spouted about things YOU think I believe in.
With this being a very nice example:
 Quote:
And it is not the West that needs to control it's emissions. Again, the Green movement is the last bastion of the Reds. Leftist ideology is driving the politics - not the science. If you really want to 'fix' the problem, the developing world is to blame - over population, unsustainable populations, almost no environmental regulation, and massive deforestation. Deforestation in the 'developing' world is responsible vast increases in CO2, water vapor, and methane. If you really want solve global warming, look at countries like China, India, and Brazil.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44482 - 11/26/10 03:50 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dimitri]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
I am not saying what you believe in. Only you can know that. What I am saying is that the Green agenda is the Red agenda. And, people who regurgitate Green propaganda are, as Stalin called them, 'useful idiots.'

Again, and again, I wish to debate the facts. The fact of the matter is no one can show where man made CO2 X is causing sea level rise Y. This simple graph does not exist anywhere.

'We' are told by the Greens what sort of car we can dive, what sort of light bulb we can use, and what kind of toilet we can have in our house - all in the name of Saving The Planet. Yet, when we ask a simple question like 'show me some proof' we get obfuscation and equivocation. In your own particular case, you completely bypassed my point on GHG and the natural interglacial periods. Instead, you got huffy about sincerity of your cause.

I was a general science major and latter change my major to pre-med. I feel pretty comfortable discussing science. That is why I have very little patience with Liberal Arts majors who try to explain the "science" of Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change/Bad Weather.

The fact of the matter, is nothing is worse for the Environment than the teaming masses of third world booger eaters who cut down every tree in their cesspool of a nation for fire wood and burn plastic in open pits. Now go debate THAT on floor of the United Nations.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#44485 - 11/26/10 04:44 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Fist]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
'We' are told by the Greens what sort of car we can dive, what sort of light bulb we can use, and what kind of toilet we can have in our house - all in the name of Saving The Planet. Yet, when we ask a simple question like 'show me some proof' we get obfuscation and equivocation. In your own particular case, you completely bypassed my point on GHG and the natural interglacial periods. Instead, you got huffy about sincerity of your cause.

I didn't know I could dive cars.. but the joking aside..
Yes, I am aware of such notions the "greens" tend to have and people like me are almost automatically going to be classified with that label. But there a few different kinds of people in the green movement. At large they can be lumped into the intellectual uneducated and the others can be described as "investigators". I prefer to be associated with the investigators, the ones who do research and hardly are going to promote "radical chances of life to save the planet" (as said before, I only do so for esthetical reasons for a few innitiatives such as a sensibilisation for the use and study of different green technologies and energy).

I sincerly do apologize for the previous post for getting a bit huffy about the situation. It breaks my little heart to read nonsense which has been debunked and explained many times over and over again. The global warming debate is one which needs quite an understanding (and actually needs quite an intellectual brainpower) to agree. Your point about "man made emission X causes sea rise Y" is a valid one. Yet, no graphs can be used here because of the complicated feedback mechanisms and general mechanisms in the atmosphere. But we do know it has an influence. Why? Because we know what the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are in the higher atmosphere and how they (and other gasses) can influence radiationlevels, or in a wrong but more easier to understand word: heat, from the sun and almost directly have an impact down here. It is easy enough to understand the laws of thermodynamics and apply them in this subject. General influx of energy will cause the level of entropy to raise.

Evidences for this theory are found in the deep ice layers and fossils. (I guess you are aware of the atmospheric footprint left in permafrost from which we can estimate/conclude what sort of climates were once found across the globe together with the different kind of gasses which were present at that time.)

 Quote:
That is why I have very little patience with Liberal Arts majors who try to explain the "science" of Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change/Bad Weather.

That's something we quite agree on. An arts professor explaining global warming is about as valid as letting a priest explain what the theory of evolution is (those with a little know-how of evolutionary biology and Darwin might see the irony/joke here).

 Quote:
What I am saying is that the Green agenda is the Red agenda. And, people who regurgitate Green propaganda are, as Stalin called them, 'useful idiots.'

I pretty much doubt there is a conspiracy of the green agenda being the same as the agenda of socialists. Global warming debate has become too much of a political issue then a global problem. An answer like this made me think of a future wherein we can choose to fuck everything up because "of a socialist (or other disliked) political agenda". I can't really blame you, it's just the way things turned out to be.

 Quote:
The fact of the matter, is nothing is worse for the Environment than the teaming masses of third world booger eaters who cut down every tree in their cesspool of a nation for fire wood and burn plastic in open pits. Now go debate THAT on floor of the United Nations.

Might I refer you to the documentary/video "we feed the world"?
(I found it a bit too biased, yet some of the issues are quite valid and not to say too insane for words). I doubt that the burning of plastics (unless it being done on large scale) will outweigh some of the emissions the metal-industry, energy-plants, waste-disposal and mining for resources. A smart thing would be to push the third-world countries into an economy which uses durable technologies and energy-sources to evade problems we are facing at the moment (nuclear debate, waste management, conversion towards more modern durable technologies, exhausting limited energy-sources on the long run (estimations vary from 20-50 years) etc.. .

The impossibility here is the corruption and stubborn behavior/attitude politicians there tend to have. Is it because they don't know better? Because of their cultural upbringing? Something else? I don't know and there are a few possibilities which can easily co-exist as an explanation. Now, I'm quite convinced our Western life-style is the one responsible for the most pollution and environmental damage (in its biggest definition).

If you have seen the referred video then you would notice this "cutting of trees" is also a side-effect of the economy that has been created.


Edited by Dimitri (11/26/10 04:52 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44488 - 11/26/10 08:11 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dimitri]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
I stumbled on to this site while looking for more information about what countries emit the most pollution. I thought some might find it fairly interesting.
http://carma.org/

I'll have to say though, I agree with Fist about other countries with higher emissions than the US. China seems to be at the top of the list in about 90% of what I've been able to find, and that's as of 2003, or there abouts. Shoot, out of the top 20 cities world wide, China had 16 of them with the worst pollution in one primary comparison. That speaks volumes to me.

We have too many people out there blathering about GHGs while living large. I'm sure their investments run deep. As for me, I do enough to try to reduce our carbon foot print. It's time for those that truly are wasting resources (our own president included) to start cutting back and other countries to start doing as well. Especially those like China. But then again, they don't even care about what they're doing to their own people. Why would they care about what they're doing to the world? I think you're right Dimitri, it would be quite a struggle getting 3rd world countries to adapt, but may be well worth it in the end.

As for Global Warming....it's bound to happen. The world cycles, hence the changes it's gone through prior. It's going to happen again. We are but fleas to the world and when it needs to be rid of it's fleas, we'll be gone and nothing we will have done will change that. If I remember correctly, scientists believe the maximum number of people the world is suppose to be able to support is around 7 billion and we're hot on the heels of that. As the song goes......"It's the end of the world as we know it."
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#44501 - 11/28/10 10:57 AM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dimitri]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
Yes, I am aware of such notions the "greens" tend to have and people like me are almost automatically going to be classified with that label.


This is not my point at all. I am not saying you are a Green, I am saying you are regurgitating Green propaganda without applying ANY critical thinking to it. At worse, you are a misguided 'useful idiot.'

 Quote:
The global warming debate is one which needs quite an understanding (and actually needs quite an intellectual brainpower) to agree.


Indeed, and, needs real peer review. As a matter of course, these 'Climate Scientist' hide their data, fudge their results, and over state their claims. The controversy of leaked emails at East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit has been widely covered in the press. Al Core will not debate anyone in public - as will no 'Climatologist.' Founder of the Weather Channel John Coleman, has an open invitation to debate any 'Climate Scientist.' No one has taken him up on it.

 Quote:
It breaks my little heart to read nonsense which has been debunked and explained many times over and over again. The global warming debate is one which needs quite an understanding (and actually needs quite an intellectual brainpower) to agree. Your point about "man made emission X causes sea rise Y" is a valid one. Yet, no graphs can be used here because of the complicated feedback mechanisms and general mechanisms in the atmosphere.


What? (1) You can graph anything with data. There is no graph because there is no data. (2) Many people with great scientific understanding wish to do peer review on Climatologists occult data, but the Climatologists are afraid to release this data. (3) If anything has been debunked it's Anthropomorphic Global Warming. (4) Are you sure you have a background in science?

 Quote:
heat, from the sun and almost directly have an impact down here. It is easy enough to understand the laws of thermodynamics and apply them in this subject. General influx of energy will cause the level of entropy to raise.


When you say 'entropy' I will assume you are referring the tendency for all energy to reach it's lowest energy gradient? In that case, doesn't all life depend on changes in changes in delta G? After all, you did invoke God's true name - Thermodynamics!

 Quote:

I pretty much doubt there is a conspiracy of the green agenda being the same as the agenda of socialists.


Ok... then try this little experiment. Make a list, on one side of the page draw up the Green wish list. On the other side of the page copy the items that are also on the socialist wish list. What did you find?

The fact of the matter is the Greens, like the Reds, are obsessed with controlling private property and human behavior. This can only be done with the aid of a powerful totalitarian State.

 Quote:
Global warming debate has become too much of a political issue then a global problem. An answer like this made me think of a future wherein we can choose to fuck everything up because "of a socialist (or other disliked) political agenda". I can't really blame you, it's just the way things turned out to be.


The Global Warming debate is nothing but politics - not science. If the Greens really wanted to Save the Planet, they would be talking about 'pebble bed' nuclear reactors and not wind mills and solar panels. Wind mill and solar panel manufacture are as bad for the environment as anything. Lots of toxic industrial compounds go into their manufacture and you need thousands of them to compete with the power output of just one zero emission nuclear reactor.

 Quote:
I doubt that the burning of plastics (unless it being done on large scale) will outweigh some of the emissions the metal-industry, energy-plants, waste-disposal and mining for resources.


One of the many problems with people who worry about how Green they are, is that most of them are wildly ignorant about environmental issues as a whole. There is a wide spread problem in India, China, and other such places with open pit metal reclamation. Basically, there are these 'factories' of open pits where old computers, cell phones, and other electronics are thrown in and burned. They then pick through the ash for valuable metals. And the Greens are worried about the environmental impact of my Jeep!?

As to industry as a whole, yes, let's consider the whole of heavy industry. Do you honestly think a modern 'green' factory like Rheinmetall Stahlwerks in Germany is run anything like the toxic cesspool of North China Industries? Although, if you go to NORINCO's website they do have flash animation of trees growing!

For over 40 years now, as the West has been cleaning up it's act, we have simply exported our industry (and our jobs) to places with almost no environment regulation. If the Greens were serious, they would get behind pro-nationalist movements to bring industry back to the West where these factories will be properly regulated. Of course (as I will continue to point out) the Greens are the Reds, the environment is simply a tool to achieve an end. They are not after an improved environment, what they want is power over the individual and all private property.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#44503 - 11/28/10 01:46 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Fist]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
Indeed, and, needs real peer review. As a matter of course, these 'Climate Scientist' hide their data, fudge their results, and over state their claims. The controversy of leaked emails at East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit has been widely covered in the press. Al Core will not debate anyone in public - as will no 'Climatologist.' Founder of the Weather Channel John Coleman, has an open invitation to debate any 'Climate Scientist.' No one has taken him up on it.

I doubt they hide their data, as a matter of fact the yearly (and sometimes monthly) reports should be available on the internet and near your nearest governmental institute concerned with the environment. There are a few links I already posted previously which concerns these issues within my country of origin. I'm quite sure the "almighty USA" has an institute alike somewhere.
Besides, a climate scientist has yet to be invented. Most of the time it are researchers in a particular field who discovered/found something (be it a certain increase or decrease or even an immigration in a species population which can only be described by climatological changes, etc..).

I'm also sure there are certain people who would like to take the towel of John Coleman. But on the other hand, I'm pretty convinced some requests are simply ignored by the debater "not being known" and the fear of editing and censorship during the open debate.

 Quote:
What? (1) You can graph anything with data. There is no graph because there is no data. (2) Many people with great scientific understanding wish to do peer review on Climatologists occult data, but the Climatologists are afraid to release this data. (3) If anything has been debunked it's Anthropomorphic Global Warming. (4) Are you sure you have a background in science?

You are right you can graph anything with data. But it is an art to draw the right graph which can be extrapolated to make predictions. Hell, I can even draw you one if you really want it, the only problem I should be facing would be that the extrapolation is wrong and a significant number of influences within the atmosphere are going to be ignored (with the result you are going to finger-point again you were right all along since I couldn't produce a truly "correct" one). You can ask for your graphs, you can even doubt my scientific background. But all I can say is I'm getting more and more convinced your supposed background isn't that high neither for the narrow view that is being displayed concerning the issue. (Being you are underestimating the complexity).

If you say it has been debunked, then I would like to see it being debunked.

 Quote:
When you say 'entropy' I will assume you are referring the tendency for all energy to reach it's lowest energy gradient? In that case, doesn't all life depend on changes in changes in delta G? After all, you did invoke God's true name - Thermodynamics!

When you say "the tendency for all energy to reach it's lowest energy gradient" I would like to broaden it a bit by adding the more correcter "energy to reach it's lowest gradient for the matter/energy that is being available/coped with".
Slight change, can be a huge difference.

 Quote:
Ok... then try this little experiment. Make a list, on one side of the page draw up the Green wish list. On the other side of the page copy the items that are also on the socialist wish list. What did you find?

The fact of the matter is the Greens, like the Reds, are obsessed with controlling private property and human behavior. This can only be done with the aid of a powerful totalitarian State.

I was actually referring to the fact you sounded like a conspirationist. Not so much possible points they might have in common.

 Quote:
The Global Warming debate is nothing but politics - not science. If the Greens really wanted to Save the Planet, they would be talking about 'pebble bed' nuclear reactors and not wind mills and solar panels. Wind mill and solar panel manufacture are as bad for the environment as anything. Lots of toxic industrial compounds go into their manufacture and you need thousands of them to compete with the power output of just one zero emission nuclear reactor

Correction: a lot of politics is involved and some of the science is quite biased by the media. There are people, like me, who remain in doubt about certain claims and are too eager to investigate some of them.

It's true that solar panels also need some industrial processing to be made. But if I am not mistaking most of these panels are made from an combination of aluminium frame (also there are some made with a frame from recycled materials), copper wiring or other less harmless conducting material and simple silicate double layer (which is quite like seasand with the only difference being it in a plate and not a little grain).
Metal-industry is quite a dirty one, but you simply can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

The mills (with exception of the blades and generator situated on top) are mostly made up from concrete. Which is less harmless then other products. Some of these mills have less aluminium and steel then the car you drive.

 Quote:
One of the many problems with people who worry about how Green they are, is that most of them are wildly ignorant about environmental issues as a whole. There is a wide spread problem in India, China, and other such places with open pit metal reclamation. Basically, there are these 'factories' of open pits where old computers, cell phones, and other electronics are thrown in and burned. They then pick through the ash for valuable metals. And the Greens are worried about the environmental impact of my Jeep!?

Basically, the same thing happens here. The only difference in being would be the West having build a box around it and seperate and spread the produced waste over several places so it seems less and more "green". China and India etc tend to have it just in the open, burn it down and keep most of the waste concentrated in the same place.

 Quote:
If the Greens were serious, they would get behind pro-nationalist movements to bring industry back to the West where these factories will be properly regulated. Of course (as I will continue to point out) the Greens are the Reds, the environment is simply a tool to achieve an end. They are not after an improved environment, what they want is power over the individual and all private property.

Unless you can proof it I will call it conspirational banter. It wouldn't be the first time links are being made which in reality are non-existant and based on flawed guesswork and supposed parallels.


Edited by Dimitri (11/28/10 01:51 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44560 - 12/01/10 02:53 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dimitri]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
I doubt they hide their data, as a matter of fact the yearly (and sometimes monthly) reports should be available on the internet and near your nearest governmental institute concerned with the environment. There are a few links I already posted previously which concerns these issues within my country of origin. I'm quite sure the "almighty USA" has an institute alike somewhere.
Besides, a climate scientist has yet to be invented. Most of the time it are researchers in a particular field who discovered/found something (be it a certain increase or decrease or even an immigration in a species population which can only be described by climatological changes, etc..).


It may not even be about hiding the data, but that the data is not complete. No one can be 100% certain what humans are doing to the planet, only guess, yet they can be 100% certain that global changes occur naturally. That has to be taken in to account ALONG with what is believed to be human caused damage.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101201/D9JQVHM01.html

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
If you say it has been debunked, then I would like to see it being debunked.


I can help refer you to what you've labeled as "debunking the globel warming issues".....just look up "What scientists don't believe in Anthropomorphic Global Warming?" and you will get a good look at how many, and why. It's a fairly long list, so do expect to read for a while.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Correction: a lot of politics is involved and some of the science is quite biased by the media. There are people, like me, who remain in doubt about certain claims and are too eager to investigate some of them..


Some? Really? Incase you have forgotten, most if not all of our media is financially driven. How in the hell do you think Al Gore got his Nobel Peace Prize for his talks about "Going Green", while at the time his mansion was sucking up $2000+ in electric a month? He's since changed that, but the fact of the matter is, without the majority of the media being biased he wouldn't have had the opportunity to blow around his own hot air while his home was using so much electricity. Did you notice that the media didn't make a big hooplah about what he was spending on electricity? I sure did. So, yeah, I would say most, if not all media is biased and when they're presenting such things as science and global warming, I'd be very skeptical about all of what they're reporting. Wrong thing reported and they could lose a major investor.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
It's true that solar panels also need some industrial processing to be made. But if I am not mistaking most of these panels are made from an combination of aluminium frame (also there are some made with a frame from recycled materials), copper wiring or other less harmless conducting material and simple silicate double layer (which is quite like seasand with the only difference being it in a plate and not a little grain).
Metal-industry is quite a dirty one, but you simply can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

The mills (with exception of the blades and generator situated on top) are mostly made up from concrete. Which is less harmless then other products. Some of these mills have less aluminium and steel then the car you drive.


First and foremost, concrete is only less harmless once it's formed and during it's usage. The process in production is just about, if not completely equivalent to any other man made product. Concrete uses several naturally occuring substances like limestone and granite. Guess what? They have to be mined. To boot, conrete must be reinforced in order to withstand the elements without breaking or cracking, therefore it uses things like rebar, wiring, mesh, etc. It also must be sealed with chemicals, a finish much like you put on a deck on your home. So it does not stand out as being more eco friendly. If you viewed some of our current turbine set ups online, you would see the size of those turbines and know that what you are stating about the metal used is completely inaccurate. We currently have factories here in my state that use turbines and there's no way in hell they have less metal than my own car. The smaller turbines, perhaps, but definitely not ones that are powering companies or cities.

Anything that is recycled takes just as much power, and sometimes more, to complete the recycling process. Granted, that plastic water bottle didn't make it to the dump, but the recycling process just cost the same or more in fossil fuels to reuse it. We've just put more GHG's into the atmosphere by recycling, something a lot of people tend to forget. It's simply the lesser of two evils and makes people feel better, that's all. And let's not forget, it didn't go to the dump.

All the materials you mentioned take industrial production, not "some". Recycled or not, doesn't matter. If a country is making it, it usually isn't "eco friendly" and recycling doesn't mean it's any better either.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Basically, the same thing happens here. The only difference in being would be the West having build a box around it and seperate and spread the produced waste over several places so it seems less and more "green". China and India etc tend to have it just in the open, burn it down and keep most of the waste concentrated in the same place.


The point you are missing is that China doesn't have regulations against what happens to their waste. The US and several other countries do. In the US, we're not allowed to just dump toxic waste into water ways, ponds, etc. China dumps away. If you haven't viewed the pictures in the Gallery, I suggest you do. It's more than just where countries keep their waste and how they get rid of it. The regulations DO matter.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Unless you can proof it I will call it conspirational banter. It wouldn't be the first time links are being made which in reality are non-existant and based on flawed guesswork and supposed parallels.


If you knew anything about the regulations and standards the US imposes on industries you wouldn't need "proof". The US has lost millions of jobs to other countries because of this very issue. NAFTA helped that right along. Since you seem to know very little about industrial regulations, perhaps this will help you out immensely.

"Trade relations between the two countries have suffered due to various reasons time and again. The issue of large U.S. trade deficit is a major area of concern for U.S., which has grown to $ 256 billion in 2007. This has been largely attributed to the fact that Chinese imports in U. S. has not increased much as China has failed to implement the strict health and safety standards of its exports, as required by U.S. A floating and fully convertible currency system and change in certain policies of the Chinese government in accordance with the WTO (World Trade Organization) has been demanded by American manufacturers and U.S. exporters. Non-implementation of Intellectual Property Act is another area of concern in doing business with China. While the central government of China is committed to protect IPR, local bodies in China lack such commitment. Sharp rise of Chinese apparel imports were strongly objected by U.S. garment industry causing China to limit its export of apparels to U.S. Antidumping Disputes has surfaced more than once against China. It has been argued that, China by virtue of its cheap labor and low margin has been flooding the U.S. markets with Chinese products and disrupting the business of American manufacturers."

Straight from http://www.foreigntradeexchange.com/countries/china.html

The primary reason China can produce so many products so cheap is because they don't have standards, not only on their production processes, but also for their workers and the products themselves that come out of China. Here in the US there have been thousands of recalls on toys alone that were shipped in from China because of lead levels. So no, it's not just "conspirational banter". Do a little research and you'll find that what's been stated is accurate, in more ways than one.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#44562 - 12/01/10 04:54 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Nyte]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:

It may not even be about hiding the data, but that the data is not complete. No one can be 100% certain what humans are doing to the planet, only guess, yet they can be 100% certain that global changes occur naturally. That has to be taken in to account ALONG with what is believed to be human caused damage.


I am well aware of these facts, so please try to follow the discussion and base your answers on things I already said and not on subjects or matter that hasn't been dealt with or are prejudices you think I am having.
Please, try to notice certain keywords I'm always using during debates with scientific undertone (such as "possible", "might be a..", "certainty", "chances",..). They are being used for a reason, use them that way and do not try to make conclusions which, in the end, are always wrong.

 Quote:
I can help refer you to what you've labeled as "debunking the globel warming issues".....just look up "What scientists don't believe in Anthropomorphic Global Warming?" and you will get a good look at how many, and why. It's a fairly long list, so do expect to read for a while.

That was an answer I was expecting. I'm going to ask you to do the same and see how long THAT list is. It's also pretty long and you may also read quite a lot.

In other words; it's a worthless answer to try to convince me of your point. I want facts, not numbers of believers. It has been said that it has been debunked, so I would like to have a reference to a report or lecture in which it is being debunked. Simple isn't it?

 Quote:
Some? Really? Incase you have forgotten, most if not all of our media is financially driven. How in the hell do you think Al Gore got his Nobel Peace Prize for his talks about "Going Green", while at the time his mansion was sucking up $2000+ in electric a month? He's since changed that, but the fact of the matter is, without the majority of the media being biased he wouldn't have had the opportunity to blow around his own hot air while his home was using so much electricity. Did you notice that the media didn't make a big hooplah about what he was spending on electricity? I sure did. So, yeah, I would say most, if not all media is biased and when they're presenting such things as science and global warming, I'd be very skeptical about all of what they're reporting. Wrong thing reported and they could lose a major investor.


Learn to read, I was talking about how some scientific reports concerning the issue had a biased starting point, not the media or politics being financially driven. And with the science being biased I must point out that it is about investigators starting with a prejudice and are automatically trying to proof the prejudice instead of keeping an objective view and let the results speak for themselves.


 Quote:

First and foremost, concrete is only less harmless once it's formed and during it's usage. The process in production is just about, if not completely equivalent to any other man made product. Concrete uses several naturally occuring substances like limestone and granite. Guess what? They have to be mined. To boot, conrete must be reinforced in order to withstand the elements without breaking or cracking, therefore it uses things like rebar, wiring, mesh, etc. It also must be sealed with chemicals, a finish much like you put on a deck on your home. So it does not stand out as being more eco friendly. If you viewed some of our current turbine set ups online, you would see the size of those turbines and know that what you are stating about the metal used is completely inaccurate. We currently have factories here in my state that use turbines and there's no way in hell they have less metal than my own car. The smaller turbines, perhaps, but definitely not ones that are powering companies or cities.

Anything that is recycled takes just as much power, and sometimes more, to complete the recycling process. Granted, that plastic water bottle didn't make it to the dump, but the recycling process just cost the same or more in fossil fuels to reuse it. We've just put more GHG's into the atmosphere by recycling, something a lot of people tend to forget. It's simply the lesser of two evils and makes people feel better, that's all. And let's not forget, it didn't go to the dump.

All the materials you mentioned take industrial production, not "some". Recycled or not, doesn't matter. If a country is making it, it usually isn't "eco friendly" and recycling doesn't mean it's any better either.

Valid enough answer, but the part you said (indicated in bold) is the choice mankind has to decide about. From my point of view choosing the lesser evil is the most intelligent choice. I know recycling isn't that clean as some tend to think it is. But on the other hand, I do know recycled material is less harmfull then newly produced materials (no need to mine the ground materials and quite a few "cleaning" processes can be skipped). So from an environmental view I'm in for the use of recycled materials.

I also have to say that I'm quite convinced I am right about my point of "some materials need industrial processing". Recycling can also be done on private level, i.e. refilling glass bottles and plastic boxes to keep food/drinks in the refrigerator to name something. It is also considered recycling. I am aware of the industrial processing broken glass products and metal elements need, but do not underestimate small things you daily do and tend to forget that it is also considered recycling. But then again, it wouldn't be the first time I heard stories from people visiting the US and how they were baffled from the amount of things that are being thrown away (like sneakers who became a bit dirty from playing a bit too long in the mud). Or coffeecups being thrown away while they could be easily re-used after a simple cleaning with soap...

 Quote:
The point you are missing is that China doesn't have regulations against what happens to their waste. The US and several other countries do. In the US, we're not allowed to just dump toxic waste into water ways, ponds, etc. China dumps away. If you haven't viewed the pictures in the Gallery, I suggest you do. It's more than just where countries keep their waste and how they get rid of it. The regulations DO matter.

Regulations only matter to the people so they don't get sick. Waste is waste, being it thrown and/or concentrated in pits or simply being dumped in rivers and/or other places. At a certain point in time your waste will get in contact with the environment and will have its effect. And while what China does can be frowned upon, it in some way can be justified since they use natural sources which can handle the waste on a very long time scale. (Take note of the bold text..).

 Quote:
If you knew anything about the regulations and standards the US imposes on industries you wouldn't need "proof". The US has lost millions of jobs to other countries because of this very issue. NAFTA helped that right along. Since you seem to know very little about industrial regulations, perhaps this will help you out immensely.

Quoted text was about the possible agenda of "green"-movement being in fact a covered up socialist agenda, not the regulations and standards of industry and the why's why China can produce cheaper products than the West. I'm aware of the things you came to say.

Please fuck-off if you can't even follow and are simply ripping parts out of their context.



Edited by Dimitri (12/01/10 04:58 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44563 - 12/01/10 08:43 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dimitri]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
I'm not bothering to quote you Dimitri because it's a waste of time. I've followed this debate and to date you haven't proven your point any more than any one else, yet you're demanding "proofs". You've posted a couple of sites and gone from there with what you believe, like anyone else would do and has done. Your "proofs" aren't any more valid than anyone else's. And even if someone posted a lecture, data, whatever, you would try to tear it apart as well, to suit your own interest. It wouldn't matter who that data came from.

To pick one point out of your latest post about people in the US throwing out shoes because they were too muddy. Those with money DO. That doesn't happen just in the US, but please feel free to keep your bias in check. I'm not going to bother expanding on anything else with you about that, well, because I obviously can't read according to you.

You're right, I shouldn't have followed through with a thought from the word you placed in bold. If you don't want people to follow through with something even you directed towards, perhaps you should learn how words are read in the US. Little key words, like what you have listed so delightfully, are exactly what will redirect the topic, but hey, I have no clue what all that means.

By the way, when I spoke of the regulations in the US, I was refering to not only waste management, but industrial/manufacturing regulations, which was what that part of your and Fist's conversation WAS about. I have no clue where you got this..."And while what China does can be frowned upon, it in some way can be justified since they use natural sources which can handle the waste on a very long time scale." If you think dumping chemicals (from industrial/manufacturing) into water ways is "handling" of waste on a very long time scale, you really need to research more. There was a link posted that showed the highest CO2 emiting plants around the globe, and to date China has the most, in the most confined area. If that's handling waste "on a very long time scale", damn, you're right, I don't know how to read.

To be clear, this is an open forumn to it's members and I'll respond as such until a time that a moderator, familiar or even the "owners" tell me I can't. So far you haven't proven you have any more knowledge on the subject you're talking about than anyone else. You're simply regurgatating other's works, but hey, have at it. Feel free to "proofs" away.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#44566 - 12/02/10 02:48 AM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Nyte]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
I've followed this debate and to date you haven't proven your point any more than any one else, yet you're demanding "proofs". You've posted a couple of sites and gone from there with what you believe, like anyone else would do and has done. Your "proofs" aren't any more valid than anyone else's.

If a statement is being made, then I always ask for proofs which underline that statement. Yet, at this very moment none actually managed to do so. The only answers I got from your part were results of misquoting, misreading and probably no understanding. The thus following banter is somewhat related but never mentioned or hinted at all untill you came along.

 Quote:
You're right, I shouldn't have followed through with a thought from the word you placed in bold. If you don't want people to follow through with something even you directed towards, perhaps you should learn how words are read in the US. Little key words, like what you have listed so delightfully, are exactly what will redirect the topic, but hey, I have no clue what all that means.

You have reading and reading. You can see the words being written and even read them aloud, and then you got the ability to read and understand. I think you just read and took parts out without really understanding their use in the text. Or to put it more simply: ripping them out of context.

 Quote:
By the way, when I spoke of the regulations in the US, I was refering to not only waste management, but industrial/manufacturing regulations, which was what that part of your and Fist's conversation WAS about. I have no clue where you got this..."And while what China does can be frowned upon, it in some way can be justified since they use natural sources which can handle the waste on a very long time scale." If you think dumping chemicals (from industrial/manufacturing) into water ways is "handling" of waste on a very long time scale, you really need to research more. There was a link posted that showed the highest CO2 emiting plants around the globe, and to date China has the most, in the most confined area. If that's handling waste "on a very long time scale", damn, you're right

I don't believe dumping chemicals in rivers or other water related sources is a way of handling. I said it can be justified with thanks to the self-recovering mechanisms of nature. It does not mean it is my viewpoint and that it is harmless, I merely gave the option how some people think how it could be handled.

If I'm not mistaking, the US is also concluded in the top 10 of highest CO2-emissioning countries in the world. And as far as I know, you guys aren't really like China whose economy and general social standards are increasing.

Yet I'm very happy with out industrial regulations, the use of biofilters and other technologies. And you are right China is being considered a shithole, but never ever think you are far more superior as they are. I know enough of such things to put many people ashamed with their big words and almost ideological view on their current society.

 Quote:
So far you haven't proven you have any more knowledge on the subject you're talking about than anyone else.

But I can always come up with a valid enough explanation...weird hu? Perhaps time to read and understand what is being told?
I know I sometimes don't give references since I tend to explain certain mechanisms during the discussion. If I would refer to every statement or mechanism involved to base my claims on, then it will be quite bothersome to read and I'll be 100% certain even less than a handfull would "get" what has been said.

I also wonder why I should proof to have more knowledge about it then someone else.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#49319 - 02/21/11 09:13 PM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: Dimitri]
EYEHATEGOD Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/15/11
Posts: 7
it's all bullshit. nature is doing fine, and these "go green" people are nothing more than self-centered, feeble minded masses of arrogancy. they don't really care about nature, they're afraid nature will fight back from human control and inconvenience them in the future. then they get this feeling of self important arrogancy that they're somehow better than other people because they "care about the environment." they don't, they care about themselves. the reality seems to be that there is nothing we can do that will DESTROY the environment, it is much stronger than us, and in the words of george carlin, "will shake us off like a bad case of fleas." this planet sees us as nothing more than a minor nuisance that can easily be taken care of with a plague or a flood or something of the sort. it's how nature works, it's self correcting. it will shit us out and start over, continuing evolution and creating new species. we aren't a threat to the planet, the planet is perfectly ok. back to quoting george carlin, the most simple way to sum up the subject, "the planet is fine...the people are fucked."
as for these arrogant shits creating a whole new religion out of this, i don't think it's anything to fear. even if they do become like a major religion, they'll remain nothing more than a set of just real annoying people. just try to ignore these fucks, they're nothing to be afaid of.

Top
#49352 - 02/22/11 02:20 AM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: EYEHATEGOD]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
A few thoughts on your post:

It is certainly possible to destroy an environment, it's happened before: Bhopal, Chernobyl, Prince William Sound. Granted, some of these have gotten a little "better" but it is still conceivable, and highly probable, that we will eventually destroy ourselves and possible the planet along with it.

You say that "nature....will shit us out and start over" as if the Earth is somehow sentient and aware of the damage our species is doing to it. I think you've seen one too many movies by M. Night Shamalamaramadingdong.

Our species could be wiped out by some extreme natural disaster that originates on Earth but it could just as easily come from somewhere else in the vast Universe. If humans are stricken from the face of the earth due to say, an asteroid, solar flare or gamma ray blast from the vast reaches of space is that also the work of the planet self-correcting or is the the work of "some other force out there"?
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#49357 - 02/22/11 03:30 AM Re: Greens/Vegans/Bioethicists: a new religion? [Re: EYEHATEGOD]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
they don't really care about nature, they're afraid nature will fight back from human control and inconvenience them in the future.

Nature is not a separate entity with a thinking mind of its own. Nature cannot fight since it consists out of many creatures and laws who happen to find an equilibrium when there is a change, be it from man, animal, unicellular organisms, plants, fungi, or other sources.

 Quote:
they're afraid nature will fight back from human control and inconvenience them in the future.

If you've ever went to a public talking of bioethicists or people of the green movement then you would have known they do not believe man is controlling nature.

 Quote:
this planet sees us as nothing more than a minor nuisance that can easily be taken care of with a plague or a flood or something of the sort. it's how nature works, it's self correcting. it will shit us out and start over, continuing evolution and creating new species.

1) as 6 pointed out, the planet hasn't got a mind of its own. The occurrence of a plague or natural disaster is with thanks to changes in the atmosphere (from various sources) or unicellular organisms being opportunistic.
2) If you know the basics of evolution then you should know a new specie cannot be created (in the literal term) but simply is a continuation from an already existing specie with adaptations to its new environment.

As about your post in general: try to write in a proper and decent way (punctuation, capitalize the first letter of a sentence, ..).
It would also be convenient if you actually knew what you are talking about instead of talking out of your ass.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
Page 2 of 3 <123>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.035 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.