Author Topic: Tree Hugger Test (Read 1382 times)

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #15 on:** August 16, 2007, 02:02:16 PM »

Anything in a harmful concentration can be a pollutant. So far in our earth's history, Co2 has been in very low concentrations. 150-270 parts per million. There is a theory that it once rose to a high level, and this heated the earth sufficiently to liberate vast amounts of methane from hydrates and caused the Permian-Triassic extinction.

Airscrew · « **Reply #16 on:** August 16, 2007, 02:07:09 PM »

So we'll just wait for the Earth to fart itself to death then maybe we can administer large amounts of Beano and save mankind from global warming/asteriod impacts/end of the world...

68Hawk · « **Reply #17 on:** August 16, 2007, 03:13:27 PM »

Lazs, never said you said that.

Co2 is pollution if we're putting more of it into the environment than need be.

Is Al Gore right? I don't know, and the truth is much of the science is in a speculative or research stage. We don't completely know that he's wrong either.

I really don't care to get into a huge debate on Al Gore or the environment, but that little test had about an equivalent scientific basis as his movie. I'd be careful to call it a trump because it supports your political beliefs.

Aside from nitpicking at certain chemicals or other finer points of the LARGER ISSUE, the truth is that human population is skyrocketing, and human impact on the environment with it. Western lifestyles are very wasteful in a lot of ways, and if we don't do something to start curbing human impact on the planet we're all going to be in for a hard time. Maybe not in our lifetimes, maybe in a decade. Doesn't matter, eventually we will eat and drive ourselves out of house and home.

Sanity must be exercised to find a balance between the economy/environment. Hysteria isn't helping, but industrial hysteria that claims we will sink the economy by trying to provide for a better environment is also a serious problem.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #18 on:** August 16, 2007, 03:35:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Airscrew
So we'll just wait for the Earth to fart itself to death then maybe we can administer large amounts of Beano and save mankind from global warming/asteriod impacts/end of the world...

Doubt it, Beano still costs more per gallon than gasoline.

Dichotomy · « **Reply #19 on:** August 16, 2007, 04:13:29 PM »

<--- 10/10 correct

I just KNEW listening to coast to coast am at work was good for something

storch · « **Reply #20 on:** August 16, 2007, 04:17:03 PM »

AWMac · « **Reply #21 on:** August 16, 2007, 04:59:45 PM »

"We all live in a Yellow Igloo, a Yellow Igloo, a Yellow Igloo..."
Mac

McFarland · « **Reply #22 on:** August 16, 2007, 08:00:17 PM »

That test has no real signifigance. It is definantly skewed to support the people like Lazs who beleive we have no impact on the globe at all.

Airscrew · « **Reply #23 on:** August 16, 2007, 08:04:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by McFarland
That test has no real signifigance. It is definantly skewed to support the people like Lazs who beleive we have no impact on the globe at all.

translation, McFarland got an F on the test 0/10

Halo · « **Reply #24 on:** August 16, 2007, 08:15:58 PM »

Great test, Odee. I missed some but learned a lot.

cpxxx · « **Reply #25 on:** August 17, 2007, 07:43:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by McFarland
That test has no real signifigance. It is definantly skewed to support the people like Lazs who beleive we have no impact on the globe at all.

Not quite, it represents an opposing view to all the global warming propaganda we have all been subject to.

No one can deny the impact we humans have on the planet. It's there for all to see. I for one have no objection to reducing emissions and pollution. Recycling is a good thing. The less crap we put into the atmosphere, the water and on the earth the better. If there is a positive side effect to all this global warming hysteria, it is that big companies and polluters are making serious attempts to reduce their emissions. At least some are. This even extends to countries like China who in the past have simply ignored the pollution they caused.
That is a very good thing. The more we reduce our dependence of fossil fuels the better off we will be. In fact taking all the advice about energy use is to be recommended because quite honestly it will save us money. We all like smaller bills.

None of the positive aspects takes away from the fact that many of us here and all over the world have come to seriously resent the global conspiracy (probably too strong a word) to make us all believe that we have caused the Earth to warm up and that only we can do something to stop it. I don't buy it neither do a growing number of people. In the light of this we have been subject to more and more strident and hysterical fear mongering in order to convince us. We have been told the debate is over and that human caused global warming is real so we better get used to it. There are well documented cases of scientists who don't follow the party line being suppressed or had their careers damaged.

Lazs sees this as an attempt by the left to reduce our freedoms. I don't, what I see is a typical human reaction, a mob mentality. Everyone blindly following the one great message. A kind of collective madness. Also human arrogance. The notion that we can control the climate of the Earth.

Years from now, when the balloon bursts, our kids will wonder what got into us but at least the world will be less polluted.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #26 on:** August 17, 2007, 07:52:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by McFarland
That test has no real signifigance. It is definantly skewed to support the people like Lazs who beleive we have no impact on the globe at all.

Stick to hugging snakes.
People reading is not your bag.

lazs2 · « **Reply #27 on:** August 17, 2007, 09:16:51 AM »

skyrock.. anything in too high a level is toxic including water. Tell ya what.. when we get somewhere close to 6% co2 (impossible) then I will worry.

cpxx.. pollution is not good but co2 is not the boogey man it is made out to be... you see that but say "hey.. the end justifies the means"

I don't see it that way... all we have is the means and the means cause harm.

You see it as there being no lefty agenda but... who are these mob people? did people come up with this silliness on their own? Nope.. organized groups like acadmemics and the UN and the media... all lefties... made a concerted and powerful effort to come up with this myth and lie in concert. I would call that an agenda.

It may have finally taken on some life of it's own but the puppetmasters in this one are the left wing socialists who have failed in every other way.

There may even be some genuine environmentalist tree huggers who have no political agenda but... why listen to them when they are duped so easily? they are worthless mob drones.

Mostly tho.. the lefties are trying to tie co2 into mans polluting of the planet. If you are against the nutball greenhouse gas is co2 and co2 is pollution theory... then you are against the environment. That is their goal.. and they and apparently... many of you are buying it.

most of the things the man made global warming people want us to do have nothing to do with mans polluting the planet... So long as the focus is on reducing co2 there is no focus.

lazs

cpxxx · « **Reply #28 on:** August 17, 2007, 09:48:23 AM »

Don't misunderstand me Lazs. I don't see it as 'end justifiying the means'. Merely a good by product of bad science and mass manipulation. But I still don't really see it as a leftist conspiracy. You could be right though. Just not my opinion.

indy007 · « **Reply #29 on:** August 17, 2007, 11:20:56 AM »

Fun agricultural fact...

In a proper greenhouse, with various crops, you should install a co2 system. Ramping up to 1500ppm not only lets you run certain flowers in a 20 degree hotter environment without "burning", it doubles and tripples your yield.

Author Topic: Tree Hugger Test (Read 1382 times)

storch