|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
posted July 15, 2008 09:07 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 21:45, 15 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
But.. there is some truth in it. We have little effect on the global warming.
Lol. Doomforge against the climate scientists. You pick who you believe. 
Edit. Lol, had to add this gem here too.
Quote:
The ocean produces like 70% of CO2.
 
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 15, 2008 09:54 PM |
|
|
Yeah, some guys spew liquid disbelief all over it. Last I heard, that nature produces 90 percent of all CO2
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted July 15, 2008 11:13 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 23:14, 15 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
What is with you and worshipping nature like some kind of god? We as humans should control and subjugate nature so it would be able to sustain us.
I really love how you are a perfect example of what selfish and short-sighted abominations a materialistic western society can create.
Now the question is as follows: Why should I be bothered to try and do something about global warming just to ensure pricks like this can survive?
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 15, 2008 11:41 PM |
|
|
I will not touch the subject of the way we should treat nature, since I'm neutral most of the time. It's not the same as having no opinion, but more as something like waiting for more info on the subject. On the other hand, I want to say something about this:
Quote:
Why should I be bothered to try and do something about global warming just to ensure pricks like this can survive?
First punch:
You contradict yourself by saying that you don't care about nature. You're willing to allow your hate kill your enemy, you and precious nature (forgive the light sarcastic undertone).
second punch:
every creature deserves a chance at life. Again, you're sometimes so filled with hate that you're one step away from fascism  .
Quote:
I mean, if people were REALLY concerned with for example, the chopping of tropical rainforests around the equator, people themselves would STOP buying products made of that kind of wood, in turn FORCING them to stop since it would no longer be profitable...
We as in: the world and your immediate environment don't cut down rainforests. The people who do so work for people who work for people who work for people that need wood. And if you're poor, you have no say in the matter, shut up, be happy that you finally can feed your finally and steal wood from the rainforests. And how are we supposed to know that our products are mad out of THAT particular wood that is so important. And how should the crafter know this etc. the people that know it are either a) in high need of it or b) non-caring (alright, I agree here).
Quote:
Intelligent race, PPFFFT, don't make me laugh.
Think, before making such statements. I partly agree (since people do stupid things), but I mostly disagree, since we can learn from our mistakes, if willing.
not-caring =\= non-intelligent
Back to that"destroy-the-world-cus-the-evil-guy-dies" opinion:
It's our (and all creature's for that matter) nature to ensure the survival of our species. That should be enough to ensure the survival of anyone else. Become an actual working part of society is our goal or should be. All of us will die, one day, but living by the attitude of: "so we shouldn't care" is plain wrong.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 15, 2008 11:43 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Like I said, there is a very high probability that nature is in a form of "sentience" that we DO NOT KNOW.
How's that?
Doomforge:
Quote:
There are thousands of more important things about us devastating the world than the global warming.
Yeah, I suppose that water problems are a bigger problem, though global warming is still far from inconsiderable.
Moonlith:
Quote:
I really love how you are a perfect example of what selfish and short-sighted abominations a materialistic western society can create.
I relly love how you think that materialism, self-interest, and western society are bad. They're not; they're great things. (Except that materialism is often misapplied.)
Quote:
Why should I be bothered to try and do something about global warming just to ensure pricks like this can survive?
1. If you think that nature is so great, why not protect it?
2. You live in the Netherlands, a country not likely to be affected pleasantly by rising sea levels.
I support protecting nature too, but only to the extent that we need to.
To all who think that nature is more important than man:
If you think that nature is so great, and humans are so evil that they should just die, I suggest you start with yourselves. You are human, are you not? And leave us selfish materialists alone.
Alternatively, you could charter a rocket to Mercury. It's pretty undisturbed.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 09:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Edit. Lol, had to add this gem here too.
Quote:
The ocean produces like 70% of CO2.
Ah, a gem indeed. I of course meant "absorbs". Algae in the ocean absorb CO2 in a way that makes human interventions ridiculous. With those things around, we have little impact on the problem - we underestimate the earth's natural mechanisms. And we underestimate other facts too.
Here are more quotes
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.
Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.
The Earth responds to global warming by releasing more and more CO2. It's not the cause, it's the effect, and the global warming itself is in majority caused by natural causes, which people underestimate, overestimating the human activity and its effects. If you really think the process would be stopped by reducing CO2 emission.. and most people do.. You are wrong Our factories and cars have little effect on global temperature.
In my humble opinion, the worst thing that happens to earth is impoverishment of the fauna and flora, which makes our world lose its incredible variety more and more. That's sad. Not some stupid degrees that we have little impact on. Polluted water is also a big problem, just like mvass says. It's often the cause of the impoverishment, aside from other catastrophic effects. People concentrate on wrong things, perhaps that is why all those eco movements are a failure and a waste of time.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 12:09 PM |
|
|
Wow.
You have a quote from a blog.
All the scientific studies on climate change that were and are published in respected science magazines don't matter anymore. I have seen the blog!
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 01:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, US economy is collapsing.Capitalism is failing and inflation is skyrocketing.
Capitalism is failing LOL
USA =/= capitalism
Quote:
But.. there is some truth in it. We have little effect on the global warming. The ocean produces like 70% of CO2.
Actually, the ocean doesn't produce CO2. It simply absorbs and releases it.
But if you look at a graph of human emissions versus temperature change you'll see that they fit almost exactly (as shown in An Inconvenient Truth)
And also the rising sea temperatures is killing off the algae which are vital photosynthesizers.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 01:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Like I said, there is a very high probability that nature is in a form of "sentience" that we DO NOT KNOW.
How's that?
How am I supposed to explain this if we don't even know? The probability, of course, for something to be "different" is extremely high -- that is since there is a low probability that we are the way we are, and not something else (still living obviously). I mean, if you take all reactions into account, you'll realize that some form of different "conscience" is extremely likely, and not the same as us, humans. If you expect aliens, again, it's likely (unless there's a God) that they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, while still "sentient", in a different way that we don't know.
Don't ask me how, because it's like asking me what is inside a black hole (what matter is inside, what it absorbed, etc).. I can't know
I'll respond to the things you said to Moonlith too.
Quote:
I relly love how you think that materialism, self-interest, and western society are bad. They're not; they're great things. (Except that materialism is often misapplied.)
This is where you are completely ignorant, mvass. I have explained countless times to you (in the Moral Philosophy thread) that it's the reason for what we have as "hate", "wars" and "crimes" and all that, yet you say that it brings more good than bad. How is that? I mean, what exactly is 'good'? Isn't it to live happy? Then, since we all hate in a part in our lives (because we're self-interested), then we can't be 100% happy, which means self-interest is bad. I am not talking about "happiness" that results from tragedies (natural disasters for example), I'm talking about happy in the sense that you don't feel hate.
But unfortunately you seem to imply that we have some sort of "goal" in life (even though, materialistically speaking, it doesn't matter after we die), that outweights all the "hate" we had through the life...
Like I said, it's better to not have criminals and not need police at all, than to have police that stops criminals. The latter simply adds more hate and some happiness, let's say they neutralize each other. The former case, does not know "hate" however, thus it's better. What other goal in life do we have???
(oh yeah, I know, the goal is to devastate nature, that is!)
Quote:
1. If you think that nature is so great, why not protect it?
First of all, there are three "alignments" here:
1) Do not disturb = neutral
2) Help = good
3) Disturb for self-interest (like you) = evil
Both 1 and 2 are acceptable. And who said we don't try to protect nature? Unfortunately we don't have too much power or influence. 
Quote:
I support protecting nature too, but only to the extent that we need to.
What's that extent? Only for our survival? That's (3). If you do not disturb it at all, but neither help it, you're neutral, which is fine. If you protect it NOT FOR YOURSELF (or let's say your species) then you're good.
Quote:
To all who think that nature is more important than man:
If you think that nature is so great, and humans are so evil that they should just die, I suggest you start with yourselves. You are human, are you not? And leave us selfish materialists alone.
Alternatively, you could charter a rocket to Mercury. It's pretty undisturbed.
You got it completely wrong, man. We never said that nature is more important than man, but neither less. Let's take a criminal example:
Is a criminal less important than a normal citizen? Of course, since he disturbs others. Therefore, it's ok to let the criminals die (if that is the only thing stopping them obviously). In other words, here citizen > criminal.
We don't "start" with citizens when we want to wipe out crimes. We "starts" with criminals, right? Therefore your argument is flawed.
Are you also advocating to "leave the selfish criminals alone"? Or are the citizens supposed to leave their homes and go to Mercury since the criminals don't want them there?
It is the criminals that "disturb", therefore THEY should be cast away, not those that are either neutral or good.
Again, it's perfectly fine to be neutral -- that means not to disturb things around, but neither help them (on a large scale obviously)... That doesn't mean we should cast away neutrals, for they have done nothing "bad" to the Earth.
The ones that rape the Earth need to be cast to Mercury, not the innocents, get it?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 02:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How am I supposed to explain this if we don't even know? The probability, of course, for something to be "different" is extremely high -- that is since there is a low probability that we are the way we are, and not something else (still living obviously). I mean, if you take all reactions into account, you'll realize that some form of different "conscience" is extremely likely, and not the same as us, humans. If you expect aliens, again, it's likely (unless there's a God) that they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, while still "sentient", in a different way that we don't know.
Don't ask me how, because it's like asking me what is inside a black hole (what matter is inside, what it absorbed, etc).. I can't know
Big Question Mark
'there is a very high probability that nature is in a form of "sentience"'
Can you please justify this statement.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 16, 2008 02:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The probability, of course, for something to be "different" is extremely high -- that is since there is a low probability that we are the way we are, and not something else (still living obviously).
You're completely discounting the possibility that nature isn't sentinent in any way at all. Which is, until we know otherwise, the most reasonable thing to assume.
Quote:
I have explained countless times to you (in the Moral Philosophy thread) that it's the reason for what we have as "hate", "wars" and "crimes" and all that, yet you say that it brings more good than bad. How is that? I mean, what exactly is 'good'? Isn't it to live happy?
What does hate have to do with self-interest? And different things bring happiness to different people. TVs bring happiness to some. Protecting nature for its own sake brings happiness to others. But self-interest is indeed good; if directed properly (in a way that doesn't violate the rights of others), it can bring a great deal of benefit not just to the individual, but to society.
Quote:
What's that extent? Only for our survival?
I told you that you were a worshipper of non-existence. You would rather die than disturb nature. But I say that only humans have rights, so it's okay to "disturb" others.
Quote:
Is a criminal less important than a normal citizen? Of course, since he disturbs others. Therefore, it's ok to let the criminals die (if that is the only thing stopping them obviously). In other words, here citizen > criminal.
But criminals disturb citizens, whereas in my case I don't disturb people. I disturb nature, which doesn't have any rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 02:40 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:44, 16 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
Big Question Mark
'there is a very high probability that nature is in a form of "sentience"'
Can you please justify this statement.
Take aliens for example. They might have some effect on our planet (maybe even admiring it or CREATING it), and they wouldn't want us to disturb it, even though they are peaceful and thus do not apply force to stop us (and even in such a case, it would cause more destruction!)
Quote:
You're completely discounting the possibility that nature isn't sentinent in any way at all. Which is, until we know otherwise, the most reasonable thing to assume.
The problem with you, is that even if it is not sentient, it has a global balance. A lot of things get "destroyed" because of us, and that includes for example aliens. Heck, if we are crazy enough (I doubt) we can as well move the Earth into the Sun (if we can), thus we disturb it and the balance of all things, whether it is sentient or not.
Quote:
What does hate have to do with self-interest? And different things bring happiness to different people. TVs bring happiness to some. Protecting nature for its own sake brings happiness to others. But self-interest is indeed good; if directed properly (in a way that doesn't violate the rights of others), it can bring a great deal of benefit not just to the individual, but to society.
With these benefits also comes a cost. And "hate" only exists because of self-interest. Why would you hate someone that helps you, and thinks of you the same as of himself?  Self-interest causes hate in the first place (hate here is a vaguely used term that applies to most things someone does to others).
As for "society", as a materialist you are, why the hell do you care for it? It's not like you're going to have eternal happiness if you help society or something (like Heaven), the important thing is for you to release yourself of bad thoughts, not physical comforts, because after all, everything gets processed by the brain. That is, if you are sleeping and dream that you are on a beach, etc... (whatever makes you happy), even if physically you're screwed, doesn't matter since only the brain "feels". You still have hate once you are physically comforted -- bad thing.
(not to mention that IMO it is a lot worse to have self-interest in a society, it's why we have murder and all that, but of course you disagree because they are "insignificant" compared to things you see in the large scale; but nevermind you'll never agree anyway so it's why I used "IMO" here).
Quote:
I told you that you were a worshipper of non-existence. You would rather die than disturb nature. But I say that only humans have rights, so it's okay to "disturb" others.
You have a twisted logic here. To "worship" something means to do something for that. Like I said, being neutral is perfectly fine.
Do you worship your neighbor because you don't disturb his rest? Or would you rather disturb him (and let's say THAT THE LAW DOESN'T STOP YOU, as in the case of nature)???
EDIT: Don't put this as if I am the one making an action. It is people like you that actually "take the initiative" to do something (in our case, disturbing nature). So don't make it sound like I am doing something (worshiping) and you are the one who says "why should we worship it?". I'm not telling you to do anything, but you somehow still do something, that is, disturb
As for "non-existence", I think God (in your opinion) is non-existence, not nature; or are you saying that nature does not exist?
Quote:
But criminals disturb citizens, whereas in my case I don't disturb people. I disturb nature, which doesn't have any rights.
Please don't bring the "rights" arguments as it is not valid if you restrict to your view. I said that you disturb nature (in this analogy). There's nothing flawed in my argument. For all I care, you arguments with "rights" are a religion of some sort -- it's like saying "my religion tells me nature deserves to be raped" (metaphorically), how am I supposed to counter that?
The only thing that I have over your arguments is that I don't make exceptions, as in your case. Again, I am talking about the large scale, obviously, so don't make a mistake here.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 02:54 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 14:54, 16 Jul 2008.
|
@Dagoth:Quote:
Back to that"destroy-the-world-cus-the-evil-guy-dies" opinion:
But you didn't get the point! It is "let-the-world-be-destroyed-cus-the-evil-guy-does-it-anyway"
@Mvass:Quote:
If you think that nature is so great, and humans are so evil that they should just die, I suggest you start with yourselves. You are human, are you not? And leave us selfish materialists alone.
Leave you alone? How about YOU leave the nature alone, hmm? You "steal" from the nature, we care, we WON'T leave you alone.
Without your kind we would leave everything alone. However, your kind will still "disturb" nature, no matter what. So I guess YOU are the ones that need to leave nature alone!
It's like you enter my property and you say I should leave you alone?!? It's the other way around, I think I'm supposed to "punish" you for entering my property
And don't start with "nature doesn't have rights". *I* care about nature, *I* consider it to have "rights".
You know, black people also didn't have rights in the past... I'm sure you wouldn't have liked to be one of them, hmm? Don't tell me the difference between black and white people is far smaller than the difference between people and nature, this doesn't support the fact that nature shouldn't have "rights".
The society model was flawed in the past (it didn't accept black people), the one we have now is also flawed (it doesn't accept nature), but eventually it will change.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 02:57 PM |
|
|
|
Actually in some countries (in EU), there are some "rights" people have assigned to nature and animals, so it seems mvass' argument is even weaker and more subjective (rights = don't do whatever you want with them)
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 03:02 PM |
|
|
Thats completly true - in Sweden nature has "rights".
And I dont understand you who say "Why care about nature!?" ...'
We need to care about nature. Without nature we cant survive and neither can other animals -.-
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 04:14 PM |
|
|
@Doomforge
Quote:
When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic.
This poor argument makes a lot of assumptions, many of which vastly oversimplify atmospheric chemistry. Where did you read this?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 06:54 PM |
|
|
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/
I personally like that page I used to read a lot about different ecological problems - including global warming. I may not agree with everything there, but I agree with the point.
I'd like you to explain your point of view. You can use more scientific explanation - don't worry, I'll understand, since it's one of my hobbies anyway
Minion: What "research" are you talking about? FACTS please. Not some stupid myth that media constantly keep talking about. And researchers vary in their thoughts, if you need to know. Science not always agrees about such things. Especially when political/economical influence is around. People listen blindly to "scientists", no matter how absurd theories they represent. If you want people to believe in something, just get your "scientists" to state it. Voila.
I wouldn't take everything I hear from so called "scientists" as a given, and I always try to check both sides' arguments before deciding. The "global warming" paranoia doesn't convince me. Simply. People focus on it, but forget that the community wastes do much more severe damage to our world - most of which happens here and now, we don't even have to wait 500 years so our "global warming" may eventually do any harm.. -_-
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 07:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But you didn't get the point! It is "let-the-world-be-destroyed-cus-the-evil-guy-does-it-anyway"
Let me reiterate that.
Quote:
Now the question is as follows: Why should I be bothered to try and do something about global warming just to ensure pricks like this can survive?
Yes, I think I understand... Then I partly misunderstood Lith. He has an original way of thinking, partly stoic (we are all gonna die!) and partly epicurian. But is doing nothing really the best way to act? Are you going to let that guy (that you apparently hate/ dislike)do what he wants?
I'm probably looking way too much into things.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 07:26 PM |
|
|
@Dagoth: Yes, it would be actually very good if we stop the people polluting the planet. However, what I was trying to say is that it's completely useless (IMO) to stop yourself (and those that appreciate nature) polluting the planet since the "bad guys" will still do it. I understand that converting the "bad guys" into "good guys" (by stopping them) is a very important thing, but if only the "good guys" will try to stop Global Warming, it will be in vain because of the "bad guys".
So, first the most important thing is to convince the others to help nature, otherwise our efforts in preserving it will be in vain.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 07:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'd like you to explain your point of view. You can use more scientific explanation - don't worry, I'll understand, since it's one of my hobbies anyway
Alright, here's an example.
The idea behind the statement I quoted is the following. If we assume that it is true that rising global temperatures give rise to higher partial pressures of CO2 in the atmosphere, then if it is true that CO2 is responsible for global warming, this would in effect set up a positive feedback loop that would exponentially increase temperatures. That is, more CO2 in the atmosphere raises global temperatures, which causes MORE CO2 to go into the atmosphere, which raises the temperature more, which causes MORE CO2.... etc. Thus, because we haven't seen this accelerating increase in global temperature, it is concluded that CO2 cannot be responsible for the increase in global temperature.
The problem with this is that it oversimplifies what is an extremely complicated chemical system. While the premise of the argument may be, basically, true, this putative cycle of ocean-CO2-to-atmospheric-CO2 is not a closed system, and thus it is fallacious to make the above conclusion because the argument is based on a false premise. For instance, the argument completely neglects potential NEGATIVE feedback loops that also may exist in the atmosphere or the ocean that regulate CO2 concentrations and thus would prohibit the temperature acceleration that would (again, allegedly) be observed in a system where ONLY this portion of the cycle was present.
The point being that the atmosphere is extremely complex, as is the ocean. There are literally thousands of chemical reactions going on simultaneously, which leads to a morass of interdependent equilibria that are impossible to deconvolute in any reliable way, particularly in response to changes in a very important variable (i.e., temperature). The inherent difficulty in predicting the behavior of atmospheric systems is the fundamental basis for people who deny the ramifications of anthropogenic CO2 increases - when scientists one day predict the earth with melt and the next day predict it will freeze, those with a vested interest in doing nothing point this out as evidence that global warming is a big hoax. But I think you'll agree that if meteorologists cannot predict what the weather is going to be like this afternoon, how easy is it to predict what it's going to be like 20 years from now? Certainly, forming a conclusion by isolating one tiny piece of the puzzle is not the way to go, which is just what your article does.
When you strip the issue of all its scientific and political baggage, though, two things are clear to me: (1) Any idiot should be able to see that CO2 levels are currently rising, and they're rising because of human activity. People who deny this have a political agenda. (2) Whatever is the ultimate effect of this on our planet - broiling or freezing - it's not going to be a good one. This may be 10 years from now or 400, but the timescale doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. Our planet is remarkable in its ability to recover from damage done to it, and changing our lifestyle - and our personal outlook - even just a little, could make an enormous difference.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
