9L is generous compared to the new low flow models in the US: 1.6 Gallons, or 6 liters. Toilets that have been around since before the mid-1990s use a lot more, though.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I think the new toilets may be 6L/3L here too. I'm not sure though - I don't go toilet shopping very often.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The perception that religious people are non-environmental is a bill of goods that has been sold to you.
Or it could be that we know a lot of religious people and that many of them tend to be antagonistic to an environmentalist attitude.
And since it's been mainly religious people in this thread making these observations, I think it's pretty safe for us to be able to say.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with the left is, they are a coalition of extremely dedicated and committed groups. Environmentalists, gays, women, this race or that, gun control, separation of church and staters, etc, etc. One issue voters.
Actually, as any political strategist will tell you, the problem with the Left is that this is not true. Conservatives are far, far more likely to be single-issue voters, and are considerably easier to herd. Trying to organize the Left is a major challenge, not least because many "leftist" causes are diametrically opposed to each other. Anyone that tells you the Left is made of single-issue voters is revealing his ignorance.
This man speaks the truth.
I concede your point....Prop 8 proved your point. Why didn't blacks get protested by the gays? Only the christians were protested...strange.
Why would a lifelong republican conservative jump to the Left to support the most liberal senator?........Colin Powel. I'm sure he supported Obama for his political views not his skin color. Not one issue in this particular case....does this mean that Colin Powell is no longer an Uncle Tom?
It is a major challenge to be in such self denial. My mother would've voted for Hillary despite being a pro-life conservative. Femenists will ignore the plight of Muslim women to back the party's agenda. The homosexual part of the coalition will ignore the execution of gays in the middle east for the same reason. Beholdent to the NEA the left will stop poor innercity youths from having school choice. It is a difficult balancing act, no boubt.
quote: Why didn't blacks get protested by the gays? Only the christians were protested...strange.
Sadly, there isn't UBB code support for Venn diagrams, or I'd draw you one. It would help answer your question.
----------
quote: Why would a lifelong republican conservative jump to the Left to support the most liberal senator?........Colin Powel. I'm sure he supported Obama for his political views not his skin color. Not one issue in this particular case....does this mean that Colin Powell is no longer an Uncle Tom?
Let me break down some of the Freeper sludge that's cluttered up your post:
1) Colin Powell is not a conservative. 2) Barack Obama was not, and has never been, the most liberal senator in any body in which he's served. It's worth noting that the most common complaint levied against Obama by the Left right now is that he's not nearly Leftist enough. 3) You assume that because Harry Belafonte accused Colin Powell of playing "Uncle Tom" that this is a widespread and lingering belief of some nebulously-defined "Left." This is not the case. What is the case among Leftists is that they believe Powell was cynically chosen for a sinecure position and then, after his popularity and reputation was exploited for various ends, hung out to dry by people with whom he had ideological disagreements. Belafonte, for reasons I'm sure related to his personal and cultural history, believes both that Powell's skin color made this treatment more likely and also that it should have made Powell more suspicious of the people in power from the first. Whether this is true or not is hardly relevant. 4) You also appear to believe that merely stumping for Barack Obama -- and thus crossing partisan lines -- is an exclusively partisan act, in the sense that it might somehow "redeem" Powell in the eyes of Leftists for deigning to serve a conservative administration. I think this will make it difficult for you to understand the concept of non-partisan compromise. 5) You also believe that Powell endorsed Obama purely for reasons of skin color. Let us note for a moment that Obama's positions on the economy, health care, and the war in Iraq are far closer to Powell's own than Senator McCain's are; let us also note that several non-black Republicans publicly endorsed Obama prior to the election, including multiple retired generals. But let us, for the sake of argument, grant that Powell was also motivated by the desire to see someone with his skin color elected to the highest office in the land for the first time in history. What does that tell us about either man?
To be honest with you, I'm curious why you jumped immediately to this "pandering to the blacks" sideline. What makes you think that this line of inquiry logically proceeds from the previous topic?
-------
quote:It is a major challenge to be in such self denial.
*nod* Certainly the interests of multiple demographic groups are inexpertly reflected in the two major political parties. Right now, a homosexual man who believes in small government, stem cell research, and the rightness of military intervention in the Middle East doesn't have a clear party of choice; neither does an atheist Jewish woman firmly opposed to abortion and gun control but strongly in favor of universal healthcare, relaxed environmental regulations, and a higher minimum wage.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the left panders to the basist instincts in us all. Class envy, sexism, racism, etc. Build ire and blame, coalesce against the conservative bogeyman. Would you really deny the left's aversion to successful conservative minorities and women: Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza, JC Watts, Michael Steele, Sarah Palin.... Non-partisan compromise? I suppose it is non-partisan compromise for a femenist to allow enslavement of Muslim women. It's non-partisan compromise for a homesexual to ignore the killing of gays in the middle east. Non-partisan compromise, the teachers union wants to keep inner-city kids in failing schools so minorities who are failing just tow the line. Now all the sudden Obama says the fundamentals of the economy are sound. Funny, he slammed McCain for saying the same thing when the dow was 4000 points higher and the unemployment rate was much lower. Your hypocrosy. JFK would be a republican today.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. So when challenged on the particulars, you start flailing and frothing. I'm sorry to hear that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
3) I could care less about Harry Belafonte. My point is if you're a conservative minority or female, your achievements are disregarded and you are attacked. Would Clarence Thomas have been attacked by conservatives in the same manner? If Sarah Palin had a D next to her name would the sexist treatment of her been given such a pass? Conservatives have achieved on their own merits, D's give you figureheads without power, Sharpton and Jackson. Obama is safe, his motivation is simple political ambition. He won't change the African American circumstance, he rose to power representing south side Chicago; did he make their lives any better? If he cared about his people he would've plucked his Aunt out of the projects or multiplied his brothers monthly income by a factor of 10 with a $20 bill. Obama is no more African American that the son of white South Africans.
4) Like the non-partisan treatement of Joe Lieberman for supporting McCain? Presidential elections are not partisan, I agree. Anyone who votes on party lines is closed minded. I just wonder how a self described "fiscal conservative" could vote for a man who is the least fiscally conservative president we've ever had and was upfront about spreading the wealth around and expanding government. Govt spending in 2009 highest percentage of GDP since WWII.
5) I'm sure Powell would've came out for Hillary had she won, right? My conservative mother would've voted for her and she at least had the courage to admit the reason.
posted
1) It's worth noting that Powell is a fiscal conservative who believes in universal healthcare and carbon credits. And speaking as someone who's fiscally a little right of Powell, the Republicans worked really hard to lose the fiscally conservative vote over the last few years. It's no surprise that some of 'em jumped ship.
2) *nod* We've discussed this before on this site. Basically, the methodology is questionable. Without getting into it at length, the National Journal tends to assume Republicans are going to vote "conservative" and Democrats are going to vote "liberal," and then identifies core individuals who vote in a reliably partisan way. When a certain mathematically significant percentage of those people split along party lines on a given roll-call vote, the NJ tags that specific vote as a "partisan" vote in a given category and then records the votes along party lines as a percentage of one's party affiliation. They pick about a hundred votes a year, and votes which are missed or abstained from are ignored when calculating the percentage. (This is significant. McCain, for example, missed so many votes in 2007 that his affiliation could not be calculated; Obama barely squeaked in under the wire at 67 of 100. And given that the top 20 "liberal" senators were only separated by three percentage points, even a single "conservative" vote -- which Obama, since he actually stumped for the "conservative" position on a couple votes that year that he later missed, would almost certainly have made -- would have thrown Obama into the middle of the pack. Indeed, it is for this reason that a senator's place on this list changes so wildly every year.) You'll notice that I put "conservative" in quotes; that's because the ideology of the votes is in fact pretty sketchy. So, yeah, the Democratic frontrunner voted overwhelmingly with other Democrats on the few controversial partisan roll-call votes he managed to vote on that year. That's all the numbers actually say.
3)
quote:My point is if you're a conservative minority or female, your achievements are disregarded and you are attacked....Conservatives have achieved on their own merits, D's give you figureheads without power, Sharpton and Jackson.
So your argument is that Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin rose to prominence on their own merits, while Sharpton and Jackson were anointed figureheads? And you don't think that perhaps you're guilty of disregarding and attacking the achievements of liberal minorities or females?
quote:If he cared about his people he would've plucked his Aunt out of the projects or multiplied his brothers monthly income by a factor of 10 with a $20 bill.
Leaving aside the raw offensiveness of this observation -- that Obama must not love his family because he has not lifted them all out of poverty (or Africa, which is apparently the same thing) on his six-figure salary -- it's worth noting that you do raise an interesting question: how much does Obama view himself as the face of Black America? I think the obvious answer is: not much. While his race has clearly had some impact, it's clearly much less of an issue for him than it is for black Americans of earlier generations; to his credit, I think he's acknowledged that while also trying very hard to make it clear that he doesn't have much patience for racial argumentation himself.
4) Remember that the other obvious choices at the time were Huckabee and McCain. Powell is far closer to Obama's politics than to Huckabee's, and Powell and McCain have some pretty serious differences in opinion that, IMO, whittled down any policy advantage McCain might have otherwise had over Obama.
5) You didn't answer the other half of my question. Let's assume that Powell was swayed ultimately to Obama's camp at least partly by his desire to elect someone with his skin color for the first time in the history of this country. What does that tell us about Powell, really? And what if anything does that tell us about Obama?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer the original question brought up by Hobbes and then discussed at length by others I'll just add my two cents.
I find that your assessment is correct, generally, but the way those attitudes are brought about is somewhat of a convoluted path.
I think a great many of Christian (and I'm going to insert "LDS" because that is where I garner most of my observations) are not so much "anti-environment" but "anti-environmentalist." Being LDS, I completely concur that the earth is a gift that we are responsible to take care of. Being as eco-friendly as possible seems like a naturally ethical choice. Cut down on waste and your use of energy. Reduce, reuse, recycle seems like common sense.
However, I think that, in general, conservatives live by the "less is more" concept of legislation. You go ahead and tell me what would be a good idea and then I'll make my own choice, thank you very much. The flaw here is that too many people don't educate themselves so they aren't making good choices.
When conservatives see liberals chanting and frothing about environmental issues they immediately retreat, even when some of the points being made are valid. Suddenly anything that smacks of enviromentalism turns them off. I can speak personally that the whole Global Warming thing makes my blood boil. Not because temperature shifts are showing warming trends. I'm not disputing that. But don't give me some self-righteous speech about how it's my fault and if I don't change my evil ways the earth is going to be engulfed in water. I really don't believe that's going to happen. I'm not a fan of the scare tactics.
But I digress. To distill the point, IMO, right-wingers (which can very loosely be translated to most christian-based religious people) ignorantly reject ALL environmental issues because even common sense issues are lumped together with the radical ones they feel are being pushed down their throats by people they interpret would have enviromental choices legislated. Then those conservatives, not knowing quite where they should stand as long as they're not standing next to the liberals, start their own frothing about how the earth is a gift from God that we have every right to do anything we want to. In the end people on the far side of either side of the issue ruin it for those in the middle who might just make smart choices on their own.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Global Warming thing makes my blood boil. Not because temperature shifts are showing warming trends. I'm not disputing that. But don't give me some self-righteous speech about how it's my fault and if I don't change my evil ways the earth is going to be engulfed in water. I really don't believe that's going to happen.
You have some very strong misconceptions about Global Climate Change and both the science and politics that back it. This is likely do to the very inaccurate representation of the scientific issues in the media. I have been involved in the science side of this since the mid 80's, this is not an issue that is being driven by ideology or radical environmentalists, it is in fact being driven by very sound science. If you would actually like to know the truth about the issue rather just venting your anger, I have in the past posted some very good scientifically accurate unbiased references. If you want, I will post them again.
Here is one key reference. It is an excellent history of the science and how it has evolved over the past 50+ years.
posted
I don't understand the indignant attitude against global warming, either.
quote:But don't give me some self-righteous speech about how it's my fault and if I don't change my evil ways the earth is going to be engulfed in water. I really don't believe that's going to happen. I'm not a fan of the scare tactics.
What if there is a small chance it is our fault? Wouldn't it be worth doing all we can just in case? Is it really that terrible for manufacturers to be held accountable for their pollution and asked to find smarter ways? There are places on earth, China, for example, with very few restrictions on what people are allowed to do to the environment around them, and whether you think global warming is involved or not, the immediate living conditions themselves are terrible enough to warrant some kind of governmental controls.
I look at China and see an excellent example of what a libertarian attitude towards the environment would produce. Sure, maybe some people are smart and conscientious enough to take science into account and make their own wise decisions, but most people are all about the fastest, most efficient way to make a buck and if their neighbors have to suffer for it or if little kids have to die from drinking poisoned milk, too bad for them.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit - I appreciate the reference and though I can't read all the information presented in one sitting, I did read through some of the key articles. Once again, I will say that I'm not disputing that temperature trends are rising. I can completely digest information when presented this way. And, I will also repeat that I do believe that we have a responsibility to do what we can to make our daily living eco-friendly. I don't think that I've had misconceptions about Global Warming itself. I'll completely concede to the fact that it's not a topic that I've spent a great deal of time researching, but the information you presented with your link is pretty well consistent with my understanding.
It's the PRESENTATION that makes my blood boil. I was using just a tad of hyperbole when I mentioned the earth being "engulfed" in water. I stand by my statement that scare tactics really turn me off.
Coming back to Hobbes' original point, however, I wonder (which means I really do wonder; I'm not pinning any type of attitude on you) if the fact that I stated my religious beliefs in any way swayed your reaction to my post. Although I tried to couch my statements in a pro-environment way, the one comment I made that referred to a media-obsessed predominantly leftist issue is the one that was immediately addressed.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's the PRESENTATION that makes my blood boil. I was using just a tad of hyperbole when I mentioned the earth being "engulfed" in water. I stand by my statement that scare tactics really turn me off.
I guess that just isn't a hyperbole I've heard from any scientific or environmental group. Perhaps you could give me a reference but to the best of my knowledge, that is not a hyperbole even the most extreme environmental groups are throwing around. It sounds more to me like the kind of lies that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity spread and not anything commonly said by environmentalists.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie- Again, I'm not against addressing Global Warming. And as you stated, most people AREN'T going to research the issues and make their own educated decisions. That's why I get angry when the media, who, in a perfect world, should be trusted to present us with accurate information without tacking on pre-made moral judgements that we must either conform to or be seen as the enemy.
Maybe it is our fault. Okay, let's try to be better. But I have a real problem when people care more about the environment than the people who live in it.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Coming back to Hobbes' original point, however, I wonder (which means I really do wonder; I'm not pinning any type of attitude on you) if the fact that I stated my religious beliefs in any way swayed your reaction to my post.
Well, since Rabbit and I, who both responded to your post, are both LDS, I'd say probably not Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Although I tried to couch my statements in a pro-environment way, the one comment I made that referred to a media-obsessed predominantly leftist issue is the one that was immediately addressed.
Rabbit is a climatologist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess that just isn't a hyperbole I've heard from any scientific or environmental group.
You're right. Unfortunately I don't get most of my information from scientists.
For those of us who don't delve deeply into every issue we're left with impressions we get from those with the loudest voices. I can't give you specific references unfotunately, only the computer-generated image that is imprinted on my mind of the whole of Florida being swallowed by water. I honestly can't remember where I specifically saw this, but I remember it, so it has colored my opinion.
For the record, I have never once listened to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. They bother me just as much.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Although I tried to couch my statements in a pro-environment way, the one comment I made that referred to a media-obsessed predominantly leftist issue is the one that was immediately addressed.
Rabbit is a climatologist.
Not quite. I am an atmospheric chemist, but I am deeply familiar with the climatology research.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess that just isn't a hyperbole I've heard from any scientific or environmental group.
You're right. Unfortunately I don't get most of my information from scientists.
And this doesn't strike you as a serious problem in your ability to draw sound conclusions?
quote:For those of us who don't delve deeply into every issue we're left with impressions we get from those with the loudest voices. I can't give you specific references unfotunately, only the computer-generated image that is imprinted on my mind of the whole of Florida being swallowed by water. I honestly can't remember where I specifically saw this, but I remember it, so it has colored my opinion.
So you saw a picture, and you didn't like what you saw, and since you couldn't be bothered to find out what the facts were, or indeed, what exactly the picture was supposed to be demonstrating (I bet if it were an image of Florida in a hundred years if CO2 levels continue to rise as they are now, that it wouldn't be inaccurate), you've concluded, what? That global warming can't be a serious problem? Because a picture was too scary?
Could you have made a more textbook example of the fallacy of consequences if you'd tried?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you saw a picture, and you didn't like what you saw, and since you couldn't be bothered to find out what the facts were, or indeed, what exactly the picture was supposed to be demonstrating (I bet if it were an image of Florida in a hundred years if CO2 levels continue to rise as they are now, that it wouldn't be inaccurate), you've concluded, what? That global warming can't be a serious problem? Because a picture was too scary?
Could you have made a more textbook example of the fallacy of consequences if you'd tried?
In all fairness, most of the images I've been able to find on the internet for sea level rise in Florida, don't present a time scale they show what would happen for a given rise in sea level with no information regarding how likely that rise is or how soon it my happen. Some of them go up to 8m or more increase in sea level when scientists are predicting that sea level rise in the next century will likely be less than 1 m.
Of course a rise in sea level of 1 m would impact over 100 million people globally which is a very serious issue.
Sea level rise due to climate change will arise from 2 factors, thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet. Over the long term, thermal expansion of the ocean will be the larger of those two factors but it will take a long time for the entire oceans to warm up. There is a great deal of uncertainty in how long that will take since we have a limited understanding of energy transport in the deep oceans. Thermal expansion of the oceans will continue for a century or more after the atmospheric temperatures have stabilize. Over the next several centuries, these could amount to several meters change in sea level, but not in the next century.
The second factor contributing to sea level rise is the melting of the ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic. This contribution was largely ignored in the IPCC estimates of sea level rise for the next century. Unfortunately, during the last 2 - 3 years researchers have found that the ice sheets in both Greenland and the Antarctic are melting far faster than anyone anticipated. Several mechanisms for transferring heat from the top of the ice sheets to the bottom have been discovered which were not previously anticipated and are resulting in very rapid collapse of the ice. Hence sea level rise in the next century will most likely be considerably higher than the worst case scenario predicted by the IPCC, but still in the 1 - 2 m range, not the 8 m range shown in some of the simulations.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Rabbit, do you know about the GRACE satellites and their gravity measurements? Here I'm talking the application to measurement of ice loss for both Greenland and Antarctica.
quote: So you saw a picture, and you didn't like what you saw, and since you couldn't be bothered to find out what the facts were, or indeed, what exactly the picture was supposed to be demonstrating (I bet if it were an image of Florida in a hundred years if CO2 levels continue to rise as they are now, that it wouldn't be inaccurate), you've concluded, what? That global warming can't be a serious problem? Because a picture was too scary?
I do believe you are inferring quite a bit about my attitude toward this issue. If you'll review my past statements I think you'll find that I've indeed conceded the point that Global Warming IS an issue worth looking at and that I was grateful to Rabbit for directing me to information to give me a more complete understanding.
I apologize for not having memorized the source of every time I have been confronted with Global Warming Propoganda. I can tell you that I have often been left with feelings not at all unlike the ones produced by your comments. The snippy little attitude is a perfect demostration of my point.
I would bet it's safe to say that the average American would not be able to recall the specific sources from which they have collectively developed their own feelings and opinions on certain issues either. I gave you one example. How silly for one to think that I'm basing my feelings solely upon it.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
I know, National Geographic hates the environment but I'll site them anyway. Our carbon must be getting to Mars since they are seeing a similar melting.
posted
Geesh. It's like you know how to cut and paste links from the Free Republic forums!
*rolls eyes* Seriously, do I have to explain why each and every one of those "arguments" is intellectually empty?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Have you even looked around a little for refutations to your talking points? Even the first paragraph of the first link you provided tells us that Global Cooling "never had significant scientific support" so you're already contradicting yourself if you're presenting this as a foil to scientific concensus about Global Warming.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you denying there was cooling from the 40's to 70's. Are you denying the planet hasn't warmed in 10 years. Are you denying the hypocracy of Gore? Please, use a real argument. How do you explain regular ice ages. Good thing Neandertals found fire to put enough smoke in the air to melt the ice sheets covering North America.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you denying there was cooling from the 40's to 70's.
Yes! Check out the data.. Between 1940 and 1970 global temperatures were nearly constant.
quote:Are you denying the planet hasn't warmed in 10 years.
Yes! More data.. 1998 was the warmest year on record, largely due to a very strong el nino event. 2008 was the coolest year since 2000 due to a strong la nina, it was however still the tenth hottest year on record and hotter than every year prior to 1998.
quote:Are you denying the hypocracy of Gore?
Al Gore is irrelevant, he is at best just a mouth piece. The truth lies in the scientific data and the character of any individual involved either in the actual scientific research of the publicizing of those results is neither evidence for or against the validity of the scientific research.
quote: Please, use a real argument.
Have you read even one peer reviewed scientific report on the subject? I've been studying this professionally since you were in diapers.
quote:How do you explain regular ice ages.
Ice ages and the interglacial periods in earths past have been caused by a variety of factors including (but not limited too) changes in the earths orbit, changes in the solar radiance, and major volcanic episodes. None of those are happening right now. Numerous scientific studies have found that none of the factors associated with previous climate swings on this planet are adequate to explain the climate change we have observed over the past 150 years. The only factor which can explain the magnitude and abruptness of the current climate change is the green house effect caused by burning fossil fuels and other human activity.
quote:Good thing Neandertals found fire to put enough smoke in the air to melt the ice sheets covering North America.
Please, take the time to read one genuine objective scientific report on the subject. You sound like a Dittohead without even a basic grasp on secondary school science.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DaisyMae: I do believe you are inferring quite a bit about my attitude toward this issue. If you'll review my past statements I think you'll find that I've indeed conceded the point that Global Warming IS an issue worth looking at and that I was grateful to Rabbit for directing me to information to give me a more complete understanding.
Sorry, but if you came to this conclusion without paying attention to what scientists say, as you previously said in your post, then your opinion is pretty worthless.
quote:I apologize for not having memorized the source of every time I have been confronted with Global Warming Propoganda.
I can't understand the nonchalance. The most important thing about drawing conclusions is knowing the basis for those conclusions. You pretty much said that your whole opinion is colored by one stupid image and what the loudest voices are saying, and that you haven't gotten around to "delving" into the facts.
How much respect do you expect an opinion with such a foundation will get?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: How much respect do you expect an opinion with such a foundation will get?
Little to none. And that's fine. Respect for my view on scientific findings was never my intent.
All that has been said about my original post has been about an aside stating my own personal opinion about something which actually wasn't the point of my post. Whether I've done research on the topic is moot. The point is that the average person (which I have no problem categorizing myself as) does not know everything about each issue, but that doesn't mean they don't naturally have feelings about it. They take what they've heard and immediately develop an opinion. It doesn't matter if what they've heard is scientific or not, elaborately explained or not. You can criticize all you want your perceived idea of how much research I've done on the topic, or lack thereof. Doesn't matter, because that's not my point. I have never professed to be an expert, or even to have a better than average grasp of all the information available. I'm certainly entitled to whatever feelings I have though. Once again, please let me stress that I am NOT in disagreeance that global temperature trends are on the rise. The fact that I keep having to defend this point is proving to me that there seems to be a zealous attitude toward this issue. It's not the issue, but the zealots, I find bothersome.
The only reason I even commented in this thread was because a question was posed about the correlation between religion and environmental attitudes. I was merely stating my observations about that topic with a (now regrettable) personal statement about how I've been made to feel on the issue of global warming.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: You pretty much said that your whole opinion is colored by one stupid image and what the loudest voices are saying,
Reading back on how I originally presented this information, I suppose I can see how you would gather that I'm truly basing all my opinions on that one image. I assure you that whatever humble opinion I may have has been shaped by quite a bit more than that.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We could debate 60 years of data if you'd like but basing trends on man's recorded data is like sampling ten people in New York for a political poll. Ice ages come and go, this is a fact. I'm not going to argue it much with you. I may as well argue with the Taliban about the Jews. It is your religion. If you feel empowered by saving the planet or arrogantly believe we have sway over the climate, good for you. When they accurately predict the number and path of hurricanes, I might consider your "science". When the weather man can predict the rains in a small town a little better, I might think climatologists are on the right path. Mt St Helens spews more Co2 than all the cars in Washington State. Forest fires raged accross the continent. Water vapor is the number one green house gas. People contribute about 2% of Co2 emmissions into the atmosphere. Tax the ranchers because the cows and pigs pass gas. Forget the fact that the amount of Buffalo and other animals dwarfed our farm cattle. Oh, it's climate change now right. We can blame it on: rains, drought, freezing temps, extremely high temps. You may as well throw a witch in the pond, if she sinks she's innocent.
the green movement has made a lot of people extremely wealthy and is an excuse for future government revenue base on pig farts.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Current science does a very good job of predicting temperature trends and ice coverage trends in many parts of the world.
Local weather phenomena such as daily temperatures and the exact paths of hurricanes are, of course, much harder to predict. Indeed, I'm pretty sure theory will tell you that they aren't very predictable -- there are limits on time and space resolution, at the least.
That's not at all an indictment of our ability to predict climate, just of your ability to understand the difference between climate and weather, between the aggregate and the specific. For instance, science can predict with incredible precision many properties of a gas in an enclosed space under various conditions, but can't even start on telling you the positions of any particular particle.
Large-scale models can be extremely accurate even when they can't predict the individual parts of the constituent phenomena.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:basing trends on man's recorded data is like sampling ten people in New York
You'd rather we tried to base trends on unrecorded data?
quote:the green movement has made a lot of people extremely wealthy
Whom? Bear in mind that you have to contrast these insidious profits with what arguably comprise the "anti-green" movement, like oil and coal companies.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and they aren't just based on recorded data. We have a lot of data about the past, it is just less precise than our more recent data. Things like tree rings can tell us an astonishing amount about the climate in a particular time period.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't dispute the existence of climate change. It was going on long before humans roamed the Earth. Just in time to save the day, in 20,000 years we've figured out how to stop a 4.5 billion year old cycle. Good thing we evolved to put a stop to it.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are disputing humankind's role in climate change.
If someone you cared about was a smoker, would you caution them to stop smoking because it is bad for their health, or would you just think to yourself that everyone dies?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone has claimed that we know how to stop it. We just have a pretty good idea that we're making things worse and some idea of how to mitigate that.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I may as well argue with the Taliban about the Jews. It is your religion.
It seems you're genuinely incapable of carrying on a discussion without the wildest hyperbole and without making odious comparisons.
---
Honest question: Does saying 'the Jews' have a negative context to anyone, as opposed to simply saying 'Jews' or 'Jewish people'? It could be just because it's malanthrop talking.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry, but if you came to this conclusion without paying attention to what scientists say, as you previously said in your post, then your opinion is pretty worthless.
Let's be a little more civil. No one's opinion here is worthless.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I fought the Taliban and I have no negative perception of Jewish people. If there are any people of Hebrew decsent who were offendend, I sincerely opologize. I also find myself using the term "black" instead of African American on occasion, I mean no negative implications with that term either. I'm sure you've already discovered, keeping up with the PC term of the year is not my strong suit. But my college trascript will always show the A I got in "Black Culture", must've been a racist class.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm grateful for your military service, and I say thanks with sincerity.
With equal sincerity, though, I say that your having fought the Taliban means crap-all in this discussion. Especially since you used it as a complete subject-change. The comparison was still pretty nasty, and you shouldn't have made it.
Anyway, this little tangent is also a complete subject change, so I'll drop it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I may as well argue with the Taliban about the Jews. It is your religion.
It seems you're genuinely incapable of carrying on a discussion without the wildest hyperbole and without making odious comparisons.
---
Honest question: Does saying 'the Jews' have a negative context to anyone, as opposed to simply saying 'Jews' or 'Jewish people'? It could be just because it's malanthrop talking.
Only responding to what you percieved as an insensitive remark. Wasn't looking for support or points for my military service. I have been keenly aware, even in theater, the liberal perception of the war. I was over there listening to Demaocrats declare we had lost the war, it was a waste, etc etc. Different issue for another day perhaps.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is the evangelical nature of many environmentalists. I can only compare the dedication to the most zealous religious person. I understand, what higher calling can there be other than saving the planet. Especially for an athiest...back to the original post.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oshki, dude, you've regressed to simple trolling here. If you're going to make real points, make 'em.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wasn't looking for support or points for my military service. I have been keenly aware, even in theater, the liberal perception of the war. I was over there listening to Demaocrats declare we had lost the war, it was a waste, etc etc. Different issue for another day perhaps.
I ain't a liberal. Hell, just ask around. Just because someone objects to your particular brand of noxious politics doesn't mean they're liberal.
quote:My point is the evangelical nature of many environmentalists. I can only compare the dedication to the most zealous religious person. I understand, what higher calling can there be other than saving the planet.
You picked the most evil zealous religious group, or one of the most such groups. I'm trying to drop it, but not if you last-word with that sort of bulls@#t.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't mean to go that far, perhaps 7th day adventist or Mormon . Valid point. It's been a while since I've heard of an environmentalist burning down a suburban house, suv's in a car lot or rail road spiking a tree to kill a logger.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, you did mean to go that far. Also, HA! about SDA and LDS. How very telling that you'd phrase things that way. You didn't mean to liken them to the Taliban, just Mormons or Seventh Day Adventists.
Heh.
quote: It's been a while since I've heard of an environmentalist burning down a suburban house, suv's in a car lot or rail road spiking a tree to kill a logger.
If they burned down a hundred surbuban houses a week, likening them to the Taliban would still be unfair. And I mean even to the actual environmentalists who did it. Comparing all environmentalists on that account is stupid.
Betcha don't want the fringe-nuts on your side of the aisle trotted up and chained to you, do you?
Anyhoo. You're at least a kissing-cousin to a dittohead. I've got better things to do than talk with you. Everyone else should, too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Have you read even one peer reviewed scientific report on the subject? I've been studying this professionally since you were in diapers. 
