Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on June 26, 2001, 02:35:00 PM
-
Or, "How the Liberals sold you a lemon all these years!" (http://www.etherzone.com/dale062001.shtml)
"There’s no doubt that environmentalist nuts want us to change our lifestyles, and the sooner the better (and when I say "environmentalist nuts," I’m not talking about level-headed, conservation-minded types who want clean air and water; I’m talking about the far left wackos. You’ll discover what I’m driving at shortly). But why do they want people to alter their lifestyles - and in some cases, give up their livelihoods altogether - in the name of the planet? Simple; it’s not in the name of the planet at all. The whole thing is so damn political it disturbs me that half the country continually buys their crap.
[/b]
Comments? :)
-
reminds me of the sucker fish vs farm land issue and the fact that "someone" has place the value of a crap eating useless bottom fish over the value of a farming community & their livelyhood....
typical of today's "values" though
Eagler
-
story time! (true too!)
The school district I work for built a new middle school that opened up this past school year. They building it, and were about to clean away this last little patch of area so they could work on the parking lot when everything came to a grinding halt!
"Hold!!!" said the environmentalists!
:confused: "What is it?? What's wrong???" said the EVIL developers and construction workers.
:mad: "This area is a POSSIBLE habitat for a rare and endangered salamander!" replied the whacko leftoids.
:eek: "We haven't seen one salamander the entire time we've been here. Snakes, scorpions, bugs, yes. Salamanders no"
:( "You don't understand, the salamander MIGHT live here! If you clear this last 250sq foot area, you might make the species extinct!"
(legal stuff happens... school is delayed...)
:rolleyes: "ok ok, we'll leave this PALTRY little bit of land untouched, so that the STILL NOT AS OF YET SEEN salamander can have a nice little home right here in front of the school," the MALICIOUS right wing politicians of the school board said.
:D "HOORAY! This is a great victory for the salamander and environmentalists alike!" cried the jubilent, yet moronic leftist goofballs.
To date, no one has ever seen a salamander at the middle school, and the little (and I mean it IS little) patch of trees is still right there in front of the school. However, I did put my hand on a (thank heavens!!!) DEAD scorpion in the lab when we were setting it up in August. It had been dead for awhile, since it was all dried up, but still freaked me out! Woulda been rather painful had he been alive! Dunno if the little bugger came from the Salamander Preserve or not, but if he did... :mad:
-
It kind of reminds me of the "Y2K" threat. :rolleyes:
It's basically misinformation aimed at increasing someones profit margin <or political power in this instance> by frightening all the "enviro-lemmings" into a panic.
I watched a NOVA episode a few weeks back showing the influence of the sun and sunspots on the earths climate, they used ice cores to show weather patterns over thousands of years to prove their theory.
I'll believe proven scientific facts over some enviro lemmings theories anyday. :p
-
While I support the guy's cause, his statements are as much un-scientific BS as the "tree huggin’, hippie crap,".
Even when the global warming occures and average temperature raises a lot, some locations on earth will get cooler.
Even if our computers cannot accurately predict weather five days in advance, it does not mean we cannot accurately predict avarage yearly temperature years in advance.
Maybe we can and maybe we cannot, but those two have nothing to do with each other.
miko
-
Weeeeell.... Global warming exists, BUT it is not anywhere near the major threat of catastrophe that we are led to believe. I mean... "a global average temperature change of 1 degree could be disastrous. Polar ice caps would melt, causing flodding, blah, blah, blah..."
So I'm supposed to believe that the ice caps are sitting around at 31.5 degrees or something? Gee whiz, we're in trouble! :rolleyes
That aside, we DO need to clean up our act. Better safe than sorry. Besides, many of the factors that contribute to warming are also problematic with regard to clean air, water etc.
Oh, and just so you know - some of my best friends are hippies :mad: How dare you!? You clearly haven't experienced the joy of embracing nature! Go out an hug a tree! You'll come back changed...
;)
-
There's no doubt the enviromentalist nuts want us to change our lifestyles, and the sooner the better...
Sudden thought: Look who's talking. Sorry, just couldn't let that one go...
-
Let us remember that those that claim we are in global warming now, claimed the globe was cooling in the 1970's!!
Common sence leads me to believe that noone really knows if the globe is warming or cooling. There just isn't enough recordkeeping to make these wild extreme claims of warming or cooling!!
Does anyone really think that mankind could change the climate? Even if we made it a global project to change the climate and all on earth worked towards that goal, it would never be achieved. Everything we tried to do would be determental to human beings and we would extinguish the flame of human existence first!! We human beings are like fleas on an elephant to "mother earth"!!
Fear not, my children. The sky isn't falling, trust me.
-
Wanna know how to create global warming? Get a globe (like in the schools) and a hair dryer. Turn the dryer on full and hold it about 1.5 feet from the globe. There! Global warming....
;)
-
What's really going to be funny is when we snap into another ice age and all the environmentalist get eaten by polar bears.
-
Seriously guys, I think the US right is around the only population group in the western world that doesn't see global warming as a real threat.
The latest report done by scientists suggests that the rate of increase will be greater than previously anticipated.
Now, whether this is due to human pollution or simply just nature's way (just gotta say that through studying the ice caps, scientists haven't found such a significant increase in such a short time ever before), it's still a major issue.
For those of you that think 2 degrees centigrade won't make much of a difference: yer wrong :).
It'll change eco systems indefinitely and this warm cute waterflow we have outside Denmark is likely to slow down significantly.
If you're interested, I have some articles that deal not with what causes global warming, but what a 2-4 degree centigrade increase would do. It's a bit scary.
We can adapt, of course, but the world economy will suffer heavily, not to mention various eco systems.
-
The latest report done by scientists suggests that the rate of increase will be greater than previously anticipated
What latest report? What scientists?
-
We can adapt, of course, but the world economy will suffer heavily, not to mention various eco systems.
Nature adapts. Humans adapt.
The economy will suffer as a result of adapting? What economics course did you take? AC, increased power consumption, new markets... suffer?
AKDejaVu
-
Bush killed the Kioto treaty...
economics and american way of life above global warming...
profit above lives...
airco above nature...
25% of earth's inhabitants use over 50% of global energy consumed.
Let us all guess.... which country would that be....
Broes
-
Originally posted by Broes:
Bush killed the Kioto treaty...
economics and american way of life above global warming...
profit above lives...
airco above nature...
25% of earth's inhabitants use over 50% of global energy consumed.
Let us all guess.... which country would that be....
Broes
he didn't kill dink. He just didn't sign on to a flawed treaty that the only country that has signed on is Denmark. If it was such a great idea, how come the rest of the world didn't jump on the bandwagon, forcing the US to follow? Uh? Because they know it's a pile of dung too...
Eagler
-
he didn't kill dink. He just didn't sign on to a flawed treaty that the only country that has signed on is Denmark. If it was such a great idea, how come the rest of the world didn't jump on the bandwagon, forcing the US to follow? Uh? Because they know it's a pile of dung too...
Eagler
This guy is so funny that it scares me.
As Bush stated, he left out of the treaty because the developing countries (namely China) were left out of it. Bush was scared that China would 0wn USA if they would have to reduce pollution.
-
He just didn't sign on to a flawed treaty that the only country that has signed on is Denmark.
LOL!!! the sad thing is that he truly belives this hehe...
-
Originally posted by Maniac:
LOL!!! the sad thing is that he truly belives this hehe...
Well.. it was on TV... :D
-
Better than believing everything Howard Stern has to say.. :D
-
AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! damn wackos!!! GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A THREAT!!! THERE IS NONE!! ALL THE THERMOMETERS ARE BASED IN CITIES WHERE THERE'S THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT!!! ACCUWEATHER RELEASED THE AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE YEARS AGO (measured by sattelites not subject to the heat island effect error) AND THE INCREASE WAS NO MORE THAN .125 DEGREES OVER THE PAST CENTURY!!!!! AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHH HHHHHHH!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! DIEDIEDIEIDIEDIEDIEDIE!!!!!!!
*sucks in lotsa air*
-
I blame it all on those scheming Penguins!
-SW
-
Techinaclly we are still in a ice ige.
Really, the last ice age "ended" 12,000 years ago, but that 12,000 years only seems long in "human terms". In geologic time 12,000 years is nothing, for a 5 billion year old planet.
However the ice age didn't neccesarily end, what we are in now is a lull in the cold.
What I am getting at is that earths climate is always changing and this change happends over a long period of time very slowly and is very normal. For example what is today Antartica (and is still in realatively same place as before) used to be a rainforest, Egypt used to have a giant rainforest that dissapeared many thousands of years ago.
So what about global warming and specifically our impact on it?
Well we know global climate and temperature changes occur naturally all the time in precesses that take thousands to millions of years.
What impact do we have?
My personal stance on this is that we do have an impact, but not the death and gloom everyones children will die of skin-cancer or drown by melting glaciers tommorow if we dont adopt immeduiate changes.
However we must make changes.
For all intents and purposes industrialization and exhaust of human made "greenhuse gasses" will continue. It may not have immediate imact as in killeng everyone in two weeks but several thousands of years of behavior like this will begin to have effects. This is how gloibal climate change occurs naturally, small short term forces add up over time and gradually make changes, the net change over thousands of years could be significant.
Another thing to take note of is the global climates overall sensitivity to temperature ranges. For example a 1 degree change seems like nothing to us as our local temps shift wildly every day. But on a long term and global scale overall temperature trends over millenia are what matter. For example small increases in global temperature could actually start an ice age.
For example there was a period in earh history before humans appeared where the whole planest was a giant iceball, absolutely nothing lived on the surface.
This happened because certain landmasses moved to the equator, thus raisaing their temperature. This rise in temperature and humidity increased their rate of chemichal weathering of limestone, the componets of which then entered the atmosphere reflected the suns heat, this cooled the planet and it started snowing the snow then reflected even more heat out of the atmosphere and cooled it further and so on and so on.... Anyway this process took millions of years but the point is this change happends slowly and the wacko leftits are ovrereaching.
However it is important that we drastically reduce our emmision of "greenhouse gasses" as well be here for thousands of years to come (hopefully) and we will begin to have an impact on global climate in that long term thousands of years timeframe.
-
Originally posted by Broes:
25% of earth's inhabitants use over 50% of global energy consumed.
When you put it this way, it does sound like some of us are evil deranged energy thiefs.
How about this wording: 25% of earth's inhabitants produce and use over 50% of global energy consumed
Now we sound like advanced civilised beings.
We are not stealing energy from anyone (say, by launching our huge satellite with solar collectors and casting shade on the rest of the world).
Whoever needs more energy, let them build power plants.
miko
-
(an original poem, inspired by this thread ;) )
A Vision
i stand in a barren wasteland,
in the heat of desert noon,
on a hill overlooking a vast salt flat
that extends out in all directions
as far as the eye can see
as far as I can see
are millions and millions of people,
all kinds of people,
men, women, children,
black, white, yellow, red,
all are naked,
and all are bent over
with their tiny little heads
stuck in the ground
and their shinnly little butts
stuck up in the air
on each back is stenciled in blood
a single word
"greed", "ignorance",
"arrogance," "avarice",
"stupidity", "stubborness",
"blindness", "calousness",
"mindlessness", "naivete"
"denial"
these are the ones i can read
from where i stand
each of them struggles as they crouch there
trying to free themselves of the sand's crystalline grip,
and the more they struggle the more they stretch their necks
until most find themselves standing,
bent over at the waist,
with their legs straight,
their heads still stuck in the ground,
and their fannies taut under the silent, scorching sun
i am startled by a girlish giggle that comes
from somewhere behind me
i turn around to find Mother Nature
standing there, a vision of loveliness,
in flowing, silken robes
of every imaginable color,
a wreath of fragrant flowers adorns her head,
a bluebird sits on her shoulder
"stand aside", she says as she slowly parts her robes
exposing a giant, barbed-wire dildo strapped to her loins
"stand aside and watch", she says,
"now it's my turn"
Buhdman, out
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: buhdman ]
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: buhdman ]
-
Wow Bud, save that for your kids someday! ;)
-
Hmmmm! Seems really simple to me - keep on pumping CO2 into the air at current rates or cut back. Either way, a change in lifestyle is going to happen. The "Tree Hugging Hippies" are irrelevant - what counts is the literature.
- Yoj
-
Originally posted by Yoj:
Hmmmm! Seems really simple to me - keep on pumping CO2 into the air at current rates or cut back.
All the CO2 produced yearly by industry no more then %5 of that produced by natural volcanic activity.
Some years when volcanic activity is increased, the amount of CO2 emitted increases manyfold. Earth always lived with that, so why attributing CO2 pollution to industry is ridiculous - at least until it reaches volumes comparable with naturally produced ones.
miko
-
miko2d
don't you know it's all our fault? whatever is wrong with the world, we Americans caused it ... but at least we can still drink our water. Oh ya, and eat our beef.
buhdman
I think its time to check yourself in..
Eagler
-
Miko2d - who said global warming was directly proportional to CO2 emissions?
This isn't economics. It's a bit more complicated than that.
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
Oh Dowding, surely it must be that simple - I mean, who is it that has been warning about emmisions? Just scientists and their ilk. They obviously don't know anything, and anyway, they have a political agenda.
Sorry - being facetious. I do find it interesting that, in spite of the fact that global warming has been a concern, not of tie-dyed tree huggers, but reputable scientists backed up by reams of data based on observational evidence, we still hear people say "theres no problem, and here's why....", as though the environment of this planet was something simple.
- Yoj
-
Originally posted by Yoj:
Oh Dowding, surely it must be that simple - I mean, who is it that has been warning about emmisions? Just scientists and their ilk. They obviously don't know anything, and anyway, they have a political agenda.
Sorry - being facetious. I do find it interesting that, in spite of the fact that global warming has been a concern, not of tie-dyed tree huggers, but reputable scientists backed up by reams of data based on observational evidence, we still hear people say "theres no problem, and here's why....", as though the environment of this planet was something simple.
- Yoj
Well said.
1776 - is that the year you are living in? "Fleas on an elephant." Ridiculous. We have been ourselves that for centuries, and we are finally realizing how wrong we were.
It's time to wake up from the dream.
-
Well just to throw something in here from a geologists point of view, My senior year of college I went out with the head of the department that was studying not global warming, but global cooling. All our evidence is from 100 years or so, not nearly enough time to make a statement on global warming or cooling.
Studying glaciers and ice caps is the "only" way to tell climatic changes over time. I am not stating one way or the other, which is happening but you find a scientist that says the earth is warming I'll find you one that says it's cooling.
narsus
-
Originally posted by Yoj:
I do find it interesting that, in spite of the fact that global warming has been a concern, not of tie-dyed tree huggers, but reputable scientists backed up by reams of data based on observational evidence, we still hear people say "theres no problem, and here's why....", as though the environment of this planet was something simple.
Not really. I see quite a few reputable scientists presenting well-founded opinions that there is no problem with human-induced global warming, no ozone problem etc.
Some of the arguments I can even follow and I agree with them.
There is a lot of people who staked their livelihood and careers (including political) on the issue, that is why you see controversial views. Many of the official vies and data on those "problems" are misrepresentation.
Considering that misrepresentation is much more common in human history then anything else, why would anyone be surprised?
miko
-
The essence of the peer review system is concensus. The concensus opinion changes over time as new evidence is found and models tested, created and rejected. Right now the concensus opinion is that CO2 emissions from man made sources are causing a trend towards global warming. That doesn't mean there aren't intelligent people who read the evidence otherwise. My point is that with something where the impact is so potentially serious, saying "there is no problem", especially when a significant body of evidence is to the contrary, is a lot like sticking your head in the sand.
That and the fact that I have a hard time with simplistic explanations of complex subjects. If it was simple everyone would agree (well, almost everyone). In this example, its not just CO2 emissions - impacts on ocean flora (algae) and rain forest depletion are impacts too, because it reduces the things that absorb CO2.
By the way - while as little as a couple years ago there was a solid split between the global warming and global cooling advocates, within the past year the evidence for warming and the role of CO2 has become compelling, which is why the concensus opinion now leans that way. And of course, the biggest problem is that by the time there are obvious effects its far too late to do anything about it.
- Yoj
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Yoj ]
-
The concensus opinion changes over time as new evidence is found and models tested, created and rejected. Right now the concensus opinion is that CO2 emissions from man made sources are causing a trend towards global warming.
BZZZZZTTTTTTT
I find it laughable that ANYONE would put credence in a model of earths atmosphere/ecological processes and human interaction with them.
Billions of dollars have been spent trying to predict the weather <unsuccesfully> - and you think people can model something as complex as human contributions to global warming?
If you heard Henny Penny cackle the sky is falling would you believe that also?
SHEESH! :rolleyes:
-
People who know me in person know that I am a generally tolerant person but recently I've been loosing it. Why ??? Because of the exponential increase in arrogant selfish tosspots that live on this planet.......
1776 - where the F**K do you get off saying this
Does anyone really think that mankind could change the climate? Even if we made it a global project to change the climate and all on earth worked towards that goal, it would never be achieved. Everything we tried to do would be determental to human beings and we would extinguish the flame of human existence first!! We human beings are like fleas on an elephant to "mother earth"!!
When is this pig ignorant attitude of "we can do what we want coz muvver nature can andle it" going to stop - when are we going to get our heads out of our bank books and look more than a quarterly balance sheet ahead.
I couldn't give a toss about what scientists say about global warming - I do give a toss about what I see in my life every day:-
I see 1 in 4 kids in our schools carrying inhalers for asthmer - it was almost unheard of when I was at school
I see every man and his dog with unexplained allergies
I see my and my neighbours and relatives dying of cancers of every type
I see millions of acres of every type of enviroment destroyed to make money - tropical forest in Africa for oil, rain forest in South America for timber and cattle, the North Sea polluted from UK to Norway with industrial waste agricultural runoff and sewage (go to and east coast town beach and tell me I'm wrong), Alaskan wilderness to be mined, Antartica to be mined....
I see the blind use of finite resources because they are there and cheap.
I am truly and deeply sick to my core of the attitude expressed by the majority of posters in this thread. WHAT THE HOLY F**K do you all think is going to happen when all this cheap fuel runs out ?????? What do you think our grand kids are going to do when the last of the fossil fuel resources are controlled by one or two countries or corporations.
You know 4000 years is a mere gnat fart in the time of this planet and in that time we have MANAGED TO DAMAGE MORE THAN ANY OTHER CREATURE ALIVE ON IT. So 1776 why don't you look past your own selfish life and think what we might be capable of in another 4000 years. Maybe you should listen to the views of people who have been into space and looked back and realised what we have here.
WHY DO WE NEED A BUSINESS CASE TO JUSTIFY LOOKING AFTER WHERE WE LIVE ???
:mad:I am not a tree hugging hippie Rip but why does earning a buck or building what you want give you the right to destroy just whatever you please ????
We strive for constant economic growth because the bean counters in grey suits say thats the only way for a country's economy to survive and so we fight for the resources to keep growing - and you know what?? - those resources have to come from somewhere, from other poorer people or from natural resource but from somewhere. Its a culture of pure greed and laziness and it's worldwide - poachers killing tigers in Russia or Shell digging for oil in Antartica its all the same "F**K you and everyone else there's money to be made here" .... and I tell you I am sick to the pit of my stomach with it.
God help us all
:(
[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Sparks ]
-
Amen!
Well look at the origin of the posters, US of A.
-
Sparks:I am not a tree hugging hippie Rip but why does earning a buck or building what you want give you the right to destroy just whatever you please ????
Who said anything about destroying whatever we please to pursue happiness? This thread is about the roadkill they've been feeding you in the news and in college about us destroying our atmosphere. Currently, the US has the most strict EPA laws IN THE WORLD! (So, Maniac, your comment goes unnoticed). As a matter of fact, the US is trying to convince alot 3rd world countries to ADOPT our policies.
Its about being responsible in pursue of happiness, about respecting Mother Nature. To listen to someone that says "If you drive a car, you're killing Mother Nature" is as rediculous as believing everything your Gov't has to say.
-
I'm not going to argue in blinding reaping the natural resources, I don't like seeing the earth torn up either (rainforests being blazed so more cattle can graze, e.g.)
However, the medical issues for the -most- part are because we understand what cancer is now. You didn't hear about cancer 100 or even 50 years ago because doctors had no clue what it was. Same thing with heart disease. You can't diagnose something you don't know to look for.
As for asthma, I don't know. I haven't seen real studies that show if it's increased or not. Same thing with allergies. I haven't perceived an increase over here in the horrible USA. Doesn't mean there is or isn't an increase though. I certainly only see a very, very small portion of the US population.
edit: just remembered something... I read somewhere (can't remember where, it was awhile ago.) that the Vesuvius eruption back in 43AD (guessing, can't remember exact date) released more toxins and greenhouse gases than the entire human population has since the start of the Industrial Revolution! I don't know whether to believe it or not. If it's true, then air pollution is a bit alarmist on a global scale. If it's not accurate, then it just shows you that you can't trust what you read. *shrugs*
[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Nifty ]
-
Originally posted by jihad:
BZZZZZTTTTTTT
I find it laughable that ANYONE would put credence in a model of earths atmosphere/ecological processes and human interaction with them.
Billions of dollars have been spent trying to predict the weather <unsuccesfully> - and you think people can model something as complex as human contributions to global warming?
If you heard Henny Penny cackle the sky is falling would you believe that also?
SHEESH! :rolleyes:
Oi! Its tempting to get into name calling when presented with statements like this. Weather prediction is unsuccessful??? I don't know what to say except to wonder what planet you've been living on.
Climatic modeling is extremely successful, as is most computer modeling of dynamic systems. In any case, comparing it to weather prediction is comparing apples to aardvarks. Even if they were comparable, I'd take that level of success. Of course, if you want someone to tell you exactly what the weather will be at your house at 3:00 PM two weeks from today, you'll be waiting forever, because it can't EVER be done. But if someone tells me the climate is in danger with the same level of accuracy as the weather data that gets me safely from New York to Seattle in an airliner, I'm going to listen.
- Yoj
-
Of course, if you want someone to tell you exactly what the weather will be at your house at 3:00 PM two weeks from today, you'll be waiting forever, because it can't EVER be done.
BwaHaHaHa - and you think some moron with a climatic model will give you an accurate forcast 2 weeks from today - much less 10 or a 100 years from now? :rolleyes:
It CAN'T be done, theres no way anyone can know and accurately model all the different dynamics that combine to create our climate/ecosystem.
You also don't take into account that they can't accurately input the data describing how much CO2 and other pollutants mankind pumps into the atmosphere daily, sure they can GUESS at numbers to input - but then the whole MODEL <snicker> is thrown off and the data output is garbage.
I suggest you educate yourself a bit more on this issue, go to www.pbs.org (http://www.pbs.org) and check out the NOVA articles on global warming, especially the articles about using ice core analysis to show climate history.
-
Well look at the origin of the posters, US of A.
LOL
Yeah I think US should follow European ideas.
I mean you guys were doing really great until we got involved and set you straight. Killing each other off in barbaric wars every 25 years. Totalitarian governments in a couple of the larger countries.
Great stuff! I don't think it's a coincidence that the 20th century in Europe was a complete disaster until the USA came over to babysit. 50 years of peace and prosperity and now you geniuses think you know it all. Here we go again...
Yep what the US needs is some good old European thinking ROFLMAO!!!
I really like a lot of the Europeans I have met. But you can stick your messed up political ideas waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up your asses. Very poor track record. :)
[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Funkedup are you a native american?
I didn't know that the indian tribes taught europeans any lessons..
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy:
Funkedup are you a native american?
what's your point?
-
<sigh> another European vs US argument.
Funkedup, when nations who have millenium old histories, with millenium old differences, hatreds etc live in close proximity there WILL be conflict.
And by the way, sweeping generalisations involving the word 'you' are a little tedious. But seem to be the norm among a certain number of individuals on this board. Why bother having an original thought?
The US has hasn't had such a smooth history either; America effectively stole the country from the native inhabitants, killed each over it and supported institutionalised racial segregation deep into 20th century. Just for starters.
Of course, the US has acted in a positive way in many instances - but then so have many European countries, which is something you can't be arsed to recognise.
-
sweeping generalisations involving the word 'you' are a little tedious
LOL True! If anyone feels that my comments don't describe him accurately then please consider himself excluded from those comments. :)
-
And yes I agree that European nations have been very well behaved since the USA took a strong interest in European affairs. I hope this trend continues as the USA steps away from the nanny role. :)
I actually have a pretty high opinion of almost all of the Europeans I have met. But when their political leaders insist that people in my country live the way they want us to, you can understand that I am a bit irritated, especially considering recent world history. :)
[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
America effectively stole the country from the native inhabitants, killed each over it and supported institutionalised racial segregation deep into 20th century. Just for starters.
Actually we were British then.
-
Yeah damned Limeys!!!
-
Ok... what you are saying (some of you, I mean) is that because global warming cannot be conclusively, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt confirmed, than it must not exist? Piffle.
Chances are that it DOES exist. It may not be so serious as to end he world next Tuesday, but it WILL have consequences, and not very far in the future! So why don't you just pull your collective head out of your collective... hole in the ground, wise up to the fact that there IS a threat?
-
No, we are saying we believe it exists, but the left wing wackos and politicians are blowing it up FAR MORE than the issue really is, thus sucking your tax dollars, porking the politics, and laughing all the way to the bank..some of you are pissed because you've been had. :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
No, we are saying we believe it exists, but the left wing wackos and politicians are blowing it up FAR MORE than the issue really is, thus sucking your tax dollars, porking the politics, and laughing all the way to the bank..some of you are pissed because you've been had. :)
Right on Rip!
If there is any global warming, it's from all the hot air coming from the Europe and the left in the US :)
Eagler
-
Bollocks, Mietla. The cops in Birmingham, Alabama in the 60s were British? British soldiers fought British soldiers at Gettysburg? Custer was in fact a British officer?
News to me and perhaps anyone but you. What do they teach in Ami schools these days? :D
How very convenient and, of course, shallow. Blame any unpleasantness on your heritage, yet any success is due to the greatness of the good ol' US of A. ;)
Eagler - isn't there some newspaper cutting you can post to substitute for having any opinions of your own? ;)
[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
Is "yanking your chain" expression known in England?
-
Hey dowding, I live 60 miles north of Birmingham. There's a civil rights museum there. People come from all over the US to visit it. B'ham has had a black mayor for 21 years.
Now, lets talk about northern Ireland. So-called Catholics and prodestants killing each other over what? How many bombs explode in the average year there?
-
honestly i believe we are polluting the planet, but I think the best step we can take would be to stop the brazilian government from chopping down the trees in the amazon. Affecting nature directly ie. choppong tons of tree down has a far greater affect than driving our cars.
Forgot the volcano that blew its top in the philipenes (sp) changed global temps down 1 degree.
poluting our drinking water etc. should be a larger goal IMO.
narsus
-
Originally posted by jihad:
I suggest you educate yourself a bit more on this issue, go to www.pbs.org (http://www.pbs.org) and check out the NOVA articles on global warming, especially the articles about using ice core analysis to show climate history.
LOL - there's a laugh. You suggest better education and then refer me to NOVA and PBS? That's like referring to the Fox Network as a source in a discussion on history. No thanks - I'll stick with Scientific American, Nature, Science, and excerpts from the various Journals, like Theoretical and Applied Climatology.
Sorry Jihad, but, with all DUE respect, you don't know what you're talking about.
- Yoj
-
No thanks - I'll stick with Scientific American, Nature, Science, and excerpts from the various Journals, like Theoretical and Applied Climatology.
LOL!
Go ahead and read/believe your Sierra Club tripe. I won't debate someone who allows others to make up his mind for him. ;)
As far as knowing what I'm talking about, ice cores don't lie - unlike the lemmings who write for those magazines.
-
Originally posted by Sparks:
People who know me in person know that I am a generally tolerant.
That is not obvious from your post. It seems that once you see something that you are ignorant about, instead of figuring out or learning why that is, your tolerance runs out.
Please allow me to enlighten you on a few points any child is supposed to learn in school:
I couldn't give a toss about what scientists say about global warming - I do give a toss about what I see in my life every day
What use seing if you brain is not involved?
I see 1 in 4 kids in our schools carrying inhalers for asthmer - it was almost unheard of when I was at school
And when was that? In the few recent decades medicine made enormous progress - especially pediatric care and obstetrics. Infant mortality dropped enormously so lots of babies who would not have a chance to survive pregnancy or first few months are alive today so you can see them. Of course those people would be less healthy then avarage. Plus they would in turn make babies who would inherit their parent's weaknesses.
On top of that you have huge progress in fertility treatments so sick people who would not have had babies in the past now often do and sometimes have babies with inheritable diseases.
How about our generous welfare state where the whole generations of mothers are using drugs and alcohol and making sick babies by the dozen to survive and tarnish your statistics?
Similar thing happened in WWI when introduction of steel helmets caused more people with headwounds in the hospitals - not becasue helmets attracted bullets but because they allowed survive a bullet hit with just a wound!
So you see how a positive thing of more babies being born and surviving despite some of them being weaker is presented as a negative by manipulating politicians or morons like you.
I see every man and his dog with unexplained allergies
Same thing as the previous point plus lots of cheap food produced that involve artificial ingredients, lots of new materials some people are allergic to, etc. Nobody prevents people from buying all-natural stuff. It is more expencive then common products but not more expencive then natural stuff was 50 years ago when it was produced on inferior technology or manually. If you buy a Honda Civic instead of Ford Explorer every five years, the difference would be enough to pay for all-natural food and clothes. Most people do not chose that.
I see my and my neighbours and relatives dying of cancers of every type
Lot of them would not have been diagnosed in the past or would not have survived to get cancer because average life expectancy is much longer now. Are you going to argue that it is not? All your personal observations are BS because people do live longer, not shorter lives and that is a common knowlege.
I see millions of acres of every type of enviroment destroyed to make money - tropical forest in Africa for oil, rain forest in South America for timber and cattle
Have you noticed that human population increased considerably over the same time?
I see the blind use of finite resources because they are there and cheap.
Once they start running out, they will get more expencive.
WHAT THE HOLY F**K do you all think is going to happen when all this cheap fuel runs out ??????
Then it will become commercially feasable to invest money into newer or more expencive tectnologies. The laws of society and ecnomics are as basic laws of nature as the physical law of gravity.
What do you think our grand kids are going to do when the last of the fossil fuel resources are controlled by one or two countries or corporations.
They will stop buying huge SUVs and industrial size air-conditioners and having showers every day and switch to solar collectors.
So 1776 why don't you look past your own selfish life and think what we might be capable of in another 4000 years.
Why would we care what will happen in 4000 years? We can plan for no longer then 20 years anyway because everything changes too fast - rechnology, explosive population growth, politics.
We strive for constant economic growth because the bean counters in grey suits say thats the only way for a country's economy to survive and so we fight for the resources to keep growing
They are only saying that because shareholders (us) want that. What is your pencion fund invested in?
and you know what?? - those resources have to come from somewhere, from other poorer people or from natural resource but from somewhere. Its a culture of pure greed and laziness and it's worldwide - poachers killing tigers in Russia or Shell digging for oil in Antartica its all the same "F**K you and everyone else there's money to be made here" .... and I tell you I am sick to the pit of my stomach with it.
And we are all voting for it every day when we pay money for stuff we could live without and for comforts that are not really necessary, etc... Such is a human nature.
P.S. Quite a few of your points are correct, but when you are spewing obvious lies, you damage your own cause.
miko
[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]
-
LOL!
Go ahead and read/believe your Sierra Club tripe. I won't debate someone who allows others to make up his mind for him. ;)
As far as knowing what I'm talking about, ice cores don't lie - unlike the lemmings who write for those magazines.
"Don't pay any attention to those eggheads who study that crap their whole lives. Watch TV and make up your own mind". Amusing, but sad, too.
- Yoj
-
Hey miko! For someone that's well read, your spelling is terrible. ;)
-
Now, that is a powerful argument.
-
Well, at least the people in the US are already starting to taste the effects of the global warming..
If you think tornadoes are bad now, wait untill the average temp goes up a degree or two. THEN you'll see tornadoes.
I guess Mr.Bush thinks they'll save more money rebuilding half of the florida over and over again.
-
You miss my point by about three and a half miles, hblair.
-
Originally posted by mietla:
Now, that is a powerful argument.
So is that. So is this. :D
-
My point, dowding, was if you want to slam the US, you should use something relevant. The civil rights struggle in the south is (for the most part) over. The Native Americans are no longer run off their land. The Civil war is long settled.
Now, if you brought up school shootings, etc. in the US, you'd have brought up a current problem of ours, thus making a point, but all the stuff listed above is just old news. That'd be like me making fun of brits because that guy in the house of commons still wears that wig from the 1700's. Oh! Wait, he still does! :D
(just kidding)
-
HBlair: You (as in americans on this forum) brought up the history and past wars.. That's why a counter argument was in place.
I tried to point out that unless some of you are native americans, all that past european stuff also applies to you in your roots. So it's generally not very good idea to dig up things there for trying to slam the europeans.. However my point was not understood by many it seems.
I have a better idea: let's slam the aussies, they're relatively criminal (pun intended) :D
-
Yeah, the aussies! Llook at what they did to the Ab- -
er Abor--
I meant the Aborigi-- -
How do you spell that?!?
:D
-
I won't hear of anything said against the Aussies. I like the Aussies alot. No, I really do. I'm trying to get on the good side of one so he/she will recommend me for emigration.
I can drink Fosters lager and everything. I always cheer when Australia beat England at cricket.
Please, for god's sake, let me in!!!! I can't stand anymore of this rainy, crappy, changeable weather! :D
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
I won't hear of anything said against the Aussies. I like the Aussies alot. No, I really do. I'm trying to get on the good side of one so he/she will recommend me for emigration.
I can drink Fosters lager and everything. I always cheer when Australia beat England at cricket.
Please, for god's sake, let me in!!!! I can't stand anymore of this rainy, crappy, changeable weather! :D
No problem - you can always move to Seattle :)
- Yoj
-
Quotes from Miko2D
That is not obvious from your post.
Which is why I made the point - you don't know me Miko....
[QB}It seems that once you see something that you are ignorant about, instead of figuring out or learning why that is, your tolerance runs out.[/QB]
You have no clue what or how much I have looked into this - perhaps I have looked into it enough to have become disillusioned enough to become intollerant - hey thats a radical thought. :rolleyes:
Please allow me to enlighten you on a few points any child is supposed to learn in school
Ok - lets see what you learnt in school that I didn't.......
What use seing if you brain is not involved?
Good start - another insult. Maybe I have used my brain in judging the cases put by both sides of the global warming argument and decided that there is not enough eveidence on either side and so looked at personal experiences and then look for explanations of what I see - that as I remember from school is the basis of analysis.
I see 1 in 4 kids in our schools carrying inhalers for asthmer - it was almost unheard of when I was at school
And when was that? In the few recent decades medicine made enormous progress - especially pediatric care and obstetrics. Infant mortality dropped enormously so lots of babies who would not have a chance to survive pregnancy or first few months are alive today so you can see them. Of course those people would be less healthy then avarage. Plus they would in turn make babies who would inherit their parent's weaknesses.
On top of that you have huge progress in fertility treatments so sick people who would not have had babies in the past now often do and sometimes have babies with inheritable diseases.
How about our generous welfare state where the whole generations of mothers are using drugs and alcohol and making sick babies by the dozen to survive and tarnish your statistics
Lets see - from the early 70's to today - no I don't think there has been a major improvement in infant mortality in the UK in that period - certainly not enough to see an increase in inherited diseases and as I understand asthma is not inherited but more probably enviromental. I find your comments on fertility treatment and welfare disturbing and I won't elaborate on that further....
Similar thing happened in WWI when introduction of steel helmets caused more people with headwounds in the hospitals - not becasue helmets attracted bullets but because they allowed survive a bullet hit with just a wound!
So you see how a positive thing of more babies being born and surviving despite some of them being weaker is presented as a negative by manipulating politicians or morons like you.
By your theory that 25% of kids with asthma would have died as infants and so not been here to be included in the stats ???!!! - infant mortatlity decreased by that much - I don't think so.... oh and another insult to round it off - wtg.
I see every man and his dog with unexplained allergies
Same thing as the previous point plus lots of cheap food produced that involve artificial ingredients, lots of new materials some people are allergic to, etc.
Thankyou - my point entirely - bean counter mentality without regard for outcomes.
Nobody prevents people from buying all-natural stuff. It is more expencive then common products but not more expencive then natural stuff was 50 years ago when it was produced on inferior technology or manually.[/QB]
Wrong - it is a lot more expensive due to a premium being taken by the suppliers
If you buy a Honda Civic instead of Ford Explorer every five years, the difference would be enough to pay for all-natural food and clothes. Most people do not chose that.
Yep - that what I mean - greed based society.
I see my and my neighbours and relatives dying of cancers of every type
Lot of them would not have been diagnosed in the past or would not have survived to get cancer because average life expectancy is much longer now. Are you going to argue that it is not? All your personal observations are BS because people do live longer, not shorter lives and that is a common knowlege.
Classic assumption here that only old people get cancer - people I have known - wifes friend 18 yrs old died chest cancer, family freinds both husband and wife leukemia (probably enviromentally caused as onset together but cause unknown), family friend mid 30's leukemia, next door neighbour 20 years old died heart cancer.....
I DO know that my freinds and neighbours were not passing away at that rate 30 yrs ago.
I see millions of acres of every type of enviroment destroyed to make money - tropical forest in Africa for oil, rain forest in South America for timber and cattle
Have you noticed that human population increased considerably over the same time?
Ahhhh - so because we our population is increasing we can take whatever we want - now thats responsible.
I see the blind use of finite resources because they are there and cheap.
Once they start running out, they will get more expencive.
And that will lead to what ... looks in history books about what happens when commodoties become scarce and expensive.... oh yes conflict and wars ...
WHAT THE HOLY F**K do you all think is going to happen when all this cheap fuel runs out ??????
Then it will become commercially feasable to invest money into newer or more expencive tectnologies. The laws of society and ecnomics are as basic laws of nature as the physical law of gravity.
There speaks a bean counter - lets not do anything today because it's "not financially viable" - it may be socially responsible and maybe even prudent but if it bucks the balance sheet it's the old heave-ho. If we don't develop alternatives now then it will be too late when it runs out.
What do you think our grand kids are going to do when the last of the fossil fuel resources are controlled by one or two countries or corporations.
They will stop buying huge SUVs and industrial size air-conditioners and having showers every day and switch to solar collectors.
That's what I like to see - we can have our cake today and let our kids wash the dishes for us tomorrow - ever thought we might like to leave them something a bit nicer than conflict and crap after we're dead ???
So 1776 why don't you look past your own selfish life and think what we might be capable of in another 4000 years.
Why would we care what will happen in 4000 years?
:confused: its called responsibilty
we can plan for no longer then 20 years anyway because everything changes too fast - rechnology, explosive population growth, politics.
No we in the west with bean counters can't plan past tomorrow. I think if you look toward China you will see they plan for 50 - 100 yrs ahead - it's in their culture. France developed a railway system with a 25 yr plan that is still being implemented now.
We strive for constant economic growth because the bean counters in grey suits say thats the only way for a country's economy to survive and so we fight for the resources to keep growing
They are only saying that because shareholders (us) want that. What is your pencion fund invested in?
You mean the pension funds which are now failing to produce the income expected or which are empty because they have been raided by corporate accountants ?? Share prices do not need constant ecomomic growth to go up, they need profitable companies and profitable companies can be run ethically.
and you know what?? - those resources have to come from somewhere, from other poorer people or from natural resource but from somewhere. Its a culture of pure greed and laziness and it's worldwide - poachers killing tigers in Russia or Shell digging for oil in Antartica its all the same "F**K you and everyone else there's money to be made here" .... and I tell you I am sick to the pit of my stomach with it.
And we are all voting for it every day when we pay money for stuff we could live without and for comforts that are not really necessary, etc... Such is a human nature.
That was the phrase I was waiting for "human nature" - the biggest excuse for antisocial behaviour on the planet. It's western nature ...
Sparks
-
Originally posted by Sparks:
<snip>
By your theory that 25% of kids with asthma would have died as infants and so not been here to be included in the stats ???!!! - infant mortatlity decreased by that much - I don't think so.... oh and another insult to round it off - wtg.
<snip>
Sparks
Let's get a few facts straight in this thread before it spirals totally out of control. Arguing that something is reality based on your perceptions or personal experience with it doesn't make it so; because 1/4 of all of the children you witness suffer from asthma doesn't mean that 1/4 of all children suffer from asthma.
In the UK, the number of asthma sufferers is nearly half of your perceived total -- 1 in 7 suffer from asthma. However, you are definitely correct in your assertion that this percentage has gone up since the 1970s. In fact, the number of asthma sufferers in the UK has gone up considerably since just 1991. Here's a report on this (http://www.asthma.org.uk/infofa18.html).
And here (http://www.southglos.gov.uk/asthma.htm) is another report explaining that to date, scientific studies have been inconclusive in linking external environmental factors to asthma. Indoor environments -- the amount of proper ventilation, air quality, smoking, etc -- and diet influence asthma rates significantly. The study itself concludes that a relationship between external environmental factors and asthma rates may exist, but the findings lend only minor support to this hypothesis.
Hope that helps.
-- Todd/DMF
[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Dead Man Flying ]
-
DMF, you're just going to confuse the issues with actual statistics. :D
Thanks for the info.
-
<S> DMF - thankyou for the info sources and good points fairly made.
I would come back on a few points.....
originally posted by DMF
Let's get a few facts straight in this thread before it spirals totally out of control. Arguing that something is reality based on your perceptions or personal experience with it doesn't make it so; because 1/4 of all of the children you witness suffer from asthma doesn't mean that 1/4 of all children suffer from asthma.
Judging by the figures in the Asthma audit report my personal experience is maybe not too far from reality in my area - although 1 in 7 is a national average I live in Anglia which has one othe highest treatment rates and in an urban area which has a higher than average rate (29% is quoted) so maybe 25% is not too far adrift. I accept that my perceptions don't make it reality but if perceptions follow the general trend of the research then is it too awful to argue my point??
And here is another report explaining that to date, scientific studies have been inconclusive in linking external environmental factors to asthma. Indoor environments -- the amount of proper ventilation, air quality, smoking, etc -- and diet influence asthma rates significantly. The study itself concludes that a relationship between external environmental factors and asthma rates may exist, but the findings lend only minor support to this hypothesis.
I read that report with interest and some confusion - see what you think.....
From asthma audit
The 1996 Health Survey for England found that the age-standardised proportion of men who had wheezing in the preceding twelve months was higher (p<0.01) in those we lived in urban areas (29 per cent) than those who lived in rural areas (18.7 per cent). Among women the figures were 22.8 per cent and 17.2 per cent (p<0.01) (4).
This seems to say to me that living in a city puts you at higher risk ... agreed ???
From other report
Little evidence supports the idea that exposure to outdoor air pollution can initiate asthma in those people who do not already have the disease.
For exhaust emissions to cause asthma, we might expect to find an association between asthma and living in urban areas - yet there is little, if any, such association in the UK.
A study in Scotland found no significant difference between the prevalence of asthma in the Highlands of Scotland and urban areas in the UK, and the highest prevalence of asthma within the study was found on the Isle of Skye - an area not renowned for outdoor pollution.
Is it just me or do they appear to be contradictory ???
But then look at the source of the second report - South Gloucestershire county council - a government organisation. Those tasked with controlling emmisions and air quality are hardly going to declare a link between air quality and a respiritory condition that affects 1 in 7 people.
Also read the passage at the very end....
This study investigated the prevalence of asthma in two schools, and its relationship with air pollution. A primary school in Walsall situated near to Junction 10 of the M6 motorway, one of the busiest sections of road, was selected; the other was a primary school in Derbyshire, located away from heavy traffic in a National Park.
One of the key atmospheric emissions from vehicles is nitrogen dioxide NO2. The health implications of exposure to this implications of exposure to this pollutant have been demonstrated by a series of chamber experiments, conducted by WHO in the 1960s, which have revealed its ability to impair respiratory function in volunteer subjects.
In this study NO2 levels were determined at the Walsall school, using a monitor on the roof of the building; and at the Derbyshire school using data from the Department of Environment monitoring station at Ladybower, a few miles from the school.
Levels were significantly higher in Walsall, with some winter months experiencing poor air quality in relation to NO2 as defined by the Department of Environment criteria at the time.
Parents of children aged 7 - 8 and 10 - 11 at the two schools were asked to complete a questionnaire to determine the respiratory health of their children. The questionnaires screened out families with smokers and families who had moved into the area less than two years before the study. It was not possible to screen out families with pets in the home - asthma may be triggered by exposure to animal dangers in house dust.
Completed questionnaires revealed some clear patterns in asthma prevalence at the two schools.
At the Walsall school, 27 percent of the children in total were diagnosed as having asthma - double the prevalence for Derbyshire. In addition, another 13 per cent of the Walsall schoolchildren suffered from shortness of breath and wheezing without being clinically diagnosed as asthmatic. The corresponding figure for the Derbyshire school was 3 per cent.
The severity of asthma attacks was greater at the Walsall school, where 20 per cent of children use inhalers. There was no inhaler use recorded at the Derbyshire school. Parents were asked to subjectively rank their child's asthma on a scale of 1 - 10, with a score of 10 representing the most severe attack. 40 per cent of parents in Walsall rated their child's attacks above 6 - no parent in Derbyshire rated any attack this high.
Mode of transport to and from school also showed a difference in respiratory health. 95 per cent of all children with respiratory problems in the Walsall group walk to school which may indicate a greater exposure to atmospheric pollution. However, this could indicate that these children live near to the school and therefore near to the motorway.
Health service data shows a seasonal trend in asthma. In this study, parents in Walsall identified a peak in asthma in the winter months which correlates well with the high pollution levels at this time of year. However, at the Derbyshire school, asthma attacks peak in the summer months. This may be a consequence of allergic response to biological allergens (ie pollen). It could, however, be a response to atmospheric pollution.
In rural areas during the summer months the levels of ozone, another respiratory antagonist, tend to be high. In the year before this study, poor air quality with regard to ozone was measured at Ladybower, in the month of June. There is no corresponding date for the school in Walsall, which does not have an ozone monitor, but the nearest ozone recording site in Birmingham measured ozone levels substantially lower than Ladybower over the year preceding the study.
There seems to be some foot shooting there :)
It clearly links NO2 emmsions to asthma levels with that school reporting 27% reporting problems - thats not far off my 1 in 4.
And can we really ignore the increase that is taking place......
respectfully
Sparks
-
For Rip - <S> and hi there
originally posted by Rip
Its about being responsible in pursue of happiness, about respecting Mother Nature. To listen to someone that says "If you drive a car, you're killing Mother Nature" is as rediculous as believing everything your Gov't has to say.
Maybe not you as an idividual in isolation and maybe there is global warming through CO2 emmisions and maybe not - the evidence is unclear, but my point is we can't focus on a single issue. If you take filling your car with gas as an example - what cost does it really incur??
1. The drilling and production site to remove the oil with the pollution of the local enviroment
2. Transport of the oil to refinery - (Exxon Valdez amongst others)
3. Refining process - energy and plant required and toxins produced
4. Storage of the product at retail outlets - I have experience of this myself in aviation with leaking underground tanks and spills to goundwater
5. Burning the fuel in the engine - as well as CO2 there is CO, NO2, and heavy metals such as cadmium discharged.
Now add the other costs to driving your car:-
1.Resource use of steels and plastics and energy in building the car.
2.use of oil and rubber consumables with attendant landfill / disposal issues
3. Disposal of the car at the end of it's life.
Now multiply these costs by the millions of cars on the roads in the world and suddenly it isn't a negligible problem
My point is this - the Global warming issue has been taken on by the "enviromentalists" as the standard to bear before all battles and due to the conflicting evidence it has become the best way to trash those who value our world more than the accountants. The issues are MUCH wider than CO2 emmissions and much more pressing, but the Miko2d's of this world use the detruction of the global warming arguement and the ridicule of those who support it as proof that enviromental awareness is academic garbage we can't afford.
I believe that we can't afford NOT to be aware of what we are doing whether it be CO2 emmisions or use of finite resources. Miko's attitude of use it fast while it's here and let our kids sort it out frightens me - we have already been prepared to commit 0.5 million forces personel to protect oil resources - imagine what we would do if it were about to run out and we had no alternative......
Sparks
-
Asthma is a disease directly related to high living standards. Studies show that kids that are brought up in sterile-like clean enviroment do not develop necessary antibodies at young age and therefore develop asthma.
There is a direct relation between high living standard and asthma.. Of course the pollution doesn't help either. If you protect your kid from all possible dirt at young age, chances are that he'll develop asthma sooner or later in his life. Things are only made worse by the fact that many modern women don't breast feed their babies long enough (or at all) which deprives the child from the natural protection. They want perky titties.
-
mrripley, i think all men are trying to compensate for too little tittie time during baby time :D
-
Yeah there is a migration of tittie capital from babies to fathers.