User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59

Thread: Climate Destruction the ball is in your park!

  1. #11
    Points: 7,093, Level: 20
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 657
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registeredSocial
    Just AnotherPerson's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    18654
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,102
    Points
    7,093
    Level
    20
    Thanks Given
    900
    Thanked 615x in 446 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stjames1_53 View Post
    green energy................then investigate and produce you final plans. We cannot force corporations to do a damned thing. Not everyone is going to get on board with this because we are products of globalization. What you are pining for is a planet that will keep changing.
    Are you aware of what is happening in Hawaii? Kilauea is pumping out more poisonous gases and dangerous particulate matter in one day than man produces in a month.
    Do you really believe that Man will be here in a million years with or without pollution?
    Recall this...everything changes and it's on it's way to some place/thing different.
    I am more concerned about the immediate future. War and pestilence will destroy Man long before pollution will hinder Man's development.
    Actually, the globalist want you on board for this because it'll mean a lot more money will flow into their coffers.
    and remember this as well.....a problem is created, then a solution is offered. Both cost a lot of money.
    Hegelian Theory at work here. Create a problem, then offer a solution...........
    I am mostly worried about our children and our children's children. It would be nice if they all had some clean water to drink while they are alive. We don't know how long man-kind will exist. What I do know is that once a life has been created it seeks comfort and runs from suffering. All beings no matter they be human or animal or insect we all choose to live in comfort. We all need basic conditions for life.

    Clean air

    Clean water

    We should protect it in any way we can just in case.

    Of course what you said is true about Hawaii. That is why I used Leilani estates as an example in my prior post. I mentioned as well that there are natural cycles and disasters that could change it all in a minute. That is why I am saying global warming is the wrong argument.

    But we can all agree that pollution is destructive and destroys conditions for life.

    You cannot say oil spills are harmless or that nuclear bi product is harmless. Pollution destroys and it kills. Life was not meant to live in those conditions.

    I have investigated green energy and have done so for the past 30 years.
    And of course we cannot force a corporation to do a thing. But remember we also could not force Monsanto to label gmo's. But guess what now corporations are aware that non gmo is what the buyer wants so they clearly label anything non gmo that is non gmo because it is a major selling tactic. No one needs to be forced. But what does need to be done is for them to stop forcing us to stay in the old ways. The mega corporations wield power and suppress those who would make a change. But one thing on the side of the future is that they are already betting on green energy and some are switching horses. But they wont switch until the resources are used up. It is much like technology. They already have years in advance of tech already invented, but the dole it out slowly so they can make the most money possible.

    There is money to be made in green energy. We could have the Tokamak or hydrogen plants, every home could have solar we could have more wind.
    We could mine the trash fields and recycle everything. We could re-Forrest all of the forests. We could easily make it all right. But corporate greed is holding back the whole future of humanity by their greed. They are stealing from you and everyone who breathes. They are taking something precious from us all.

    The answers are really simple not really rocket science.
    Last edited by Just AnotherPerson; 05-24-2018 at 07:40 AM.

  2. #12
    Original Ranter
    Points: 463,748, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 67.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    413179
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    141,941
    Points
    463,748
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    81,719
    Thanked 64,152x in 43,836 Posts
    Mentioned
    2153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Just AnotherPerson View Post
    My point in the OP is that global warming is a mute argument. It is an argument that no one can win, and the real argument should instead be global pollution, since if that is what people believe is causing the warming then that will solve their problem.
    But it is more than that, Global pollution is destroying this earth. Yes this earth is billions of years old and we are destroying it in a short time frame of merely 200 years. My point is that pollution cannot be disputed it is real, and it is the real culprit.
    I have been saying this for a while. And recently we had a thread about a peer-reviewed article in a real science journal that agrees as well, stating that warming has been and will be much less than what the models predict.

    Pollution of many different types are the biggest threat. My focus has been on pollution from run-off of huge factory farms, to include fish farms. The solution is to use sustainable farming methods. This would solve pesticide run-off and provide more and better quality food (plant and animal). Another alternative, at least for farm waste, not pesticides, is to turn farm waste into alcohol fuels. The farms' entire operation could be powered that way and the excess sold in the market. But the pesticide run-off is the biggest problem as it greatly harms the ecosystem and fish in the oceans. We need sustainable fish life to feed many of the 7 billion people on this rock.

    My point is to drop the argument that is meant only for a diversion tactic and go for the real argument.

    We are being tricked to bicker over the wrong thing.
    Agreed.
    Fukushima was real, radiation is real. The BP oil spill is real, and no one can dispute it or the damages that it has done to our earth and it is practically unrecoverable. No one can dispute the plundering of resources using them all up for our one generation. No one can dispute real facts. You can say there was no oil spill and it was harmless but there will not be many who will believe you because they seen it and experienced the results with their own eyes.
    Fukushima is much worse that governments and the plant owners are letting on. Oil spills are a problem, as is many of the chemicals used to clean them up. There are particular types of mushrooms that can clean up oil spills on land- plant the shrooms and they will use the oil as food. There are also sustainable ways to clean up oil in the water. The harsh chemicals are not the way to go. Pesticide run-off is a much bigger issue.
    There is global destruction happening in full swing and if the mega corporations have their way they will plunder it to the last drop, and they do not care about the consequence's.

    Life like ours is only possible because conditions are perfect, when we remove those conditions our life in this form will cease. This is an undisputable fact.

    For you to live you need water and air and it needs to be somewhat clean in order for you to live. Those are basic conditions conducive to your life and they are not a luxury but a requirement!
    I don't think that our life form will cease. However, the pollution issue can greatly affect human life if not tackled properly.
    Alea iacta est

    Check out the blog.


  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Just AnotherPerson (05-24-2018)

  4. #13
    Original Ranter
    Points: 463,748, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 67.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    413179
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    141,941
    Points
    463,748
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    81,719
    Thanked 64,152x in 43,836 Posts
    Mentioned
    2153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Your position is extreme. Most people don't have an interest in destroying the earth with pollution- short term gain is outweighed by long term, well extinction.

    Also, Yellowstone will not destroy life on earth. Just a lot of it in the North West, when major environmental issues for much of North America.



    Link

    More from Science News.

    A new simulation illustrates the explosiveness of the volcano that lurks beneath Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming.

    Around 640,000 years ago, the volcano blew its top and coated North America with roughly 330 cubic kilometers of ash. A simulation of the eruption described August 27 in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems reveals that a similar outburst today would bury Billings, Mont., in more than a meter (about 40 inches) of volcanic glass shards and pulverized rock. Even New York and Atlanta would receive dustings several millimeters thick as winds whisked ash through the darkened atmosphere for days.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just AnotherPerson View Post
    Here's a hypothetical for you
    Let's say I lived in Hawaii for 30 years in Leilani estates, lets say that I knew one day that the volcano could come and swallow up my land. So since I knew that could and may happen in the future, I just disregarded everything and started destroying the land all around me, I trashed it and poisoned it because it was going to be destroyed anyways someday.

    If I did that then who would have got to live those 30 years in Leilani estates? No one. But because I didn't destroy it me and all who lived there got to live for that 30 years in a beautiful place and enjoy wonderful conditions for life. If I would have destroyed it none of us would have had that chance

    Tomorrow Yellowstone could blow and we'd all die and conditions for life would no longer be possible for any life on earth. Right now we could have a supernovae in a nearby galaxy and we'd all be toast. Yes there are natural occurrences, natural cycles. But we shouldn't hurry them along, or crap in our own bed either.

    We are arguing something incorrectly.

    Is pollution real? Lets stop arguing climate change completely. Lets just argue pollution instead.

    Just because we know a natural occurrence can happen should we destroy what we have before the natural occurrence has the chance to destroy it for us? I don't think so. I think we and all beings should take care of our earth and live on it for as long as we can and in a way that is healthy.

    We all know we are going to die someday, but we protect our life anyways. We normally don't kill ourselves just because death can happen someday it sounds absurd when you say it like that.

    I lived near Hanford and pollution is real. I almost died because of corporate greed and I am not alone, my whole family and everyone I know has been sickened many to the point of death. And, we are talking about just one nuclear plant. This is happening everywhere. There are frack sites, oil spills, you name it. You can freely and easily dismiss it if you are not yet directly affected. But you will be none of us can escape it. When it happens to you too you will sing a new tune. You will not be ok with being killed like a lab rat for corporate greed when you watch your family and loved ones become sickened from pollution all for corporate greed you will not be ok with it. I am certain of it. When it does happen it is quite unbelievable. Hard to imagine the world stays silent while such crime is taking place.

    Pollution is real that is the argument.
    Global destruction is real that is the argument.
    Corporate greed is the cause.
    Global warming is the diversion.


    There are many generations of beings who may get the chance to live out their lives if we don't destroy the earth, shouldn't we take care of it just in case?
    Alea iacta est

    Check out the blog.


  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (05-24-2018)

  6. #14
    Points: 7,093, Level: 20
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 657
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registeredSocial
    Just AnotherPerson's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    18654
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,102
    Points
    7,093
    Level
    20
    Thanks Given
    900
    Thanked 615x in 446 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Your position is extreme. Most people don't have an interest in destroying the earth with pollution- short term gain is outweighed by long term, well extinction.

    Also, Yellowstone will not destroy life on earth. Just a lot of it in the North West, when major environmental issues for much of North America.



    Link

    More from Science News.
    It's all hypothetical really, because none of us "really" knows what will happen. It is more like an educated guess. My position could be considered "dramatic" or "extreme" But what I do know is that we are already seeing the effects of pollution. Cancer and other diseases are just the norm now. It is a product of our environment and our consumption and lifestyle. We are evolving in our own way. Life does adapt as long as it can. But we may have to live as sick people, and our quality of life may suffer. But as for the dramatic version it could happen. None of us really knows what exactly will be the consequences of our actions.

    You are correct most people don't have an interest in destroying the earth with pollution. Even the mega corporations are not looking that far ahead I am sure. Money is the bottom line and they are not able to see past today nor do some of them care to. They are in it for the moment. I am sure the goal is not to cause destruction but sadly in many of the cases that is the outcome. It is the consequence of the action. Even if not intended. I think most people "common plebians" would not want to participate in global pollution and would choose alternatives if presented or available. Life is hard and people take the path of least resistance.

    Ah Yellowstone. I was really just arguing a point there. My bad. Perhaps there would not be complete extinction you are correct there. But it is possible that it could cause and ice age and I am not really sure what all would go down with that. I am not sure anyone really knows what would happen.

    What I do know is that this topic is no longer something that only the future generations need to worry about it is affecting us as we speak. We are now living in the world that has become more toxic, and we are suffering the consequences. If we are suffering this now with the way things are as they are, then how much more so will we suffer when regulations are wiped away, and accidents become the norm. The things we face now are already great, and more than we can handle, how will we handle another fukushima, or BP? There are many more to come. In china people already buy air, its already happening. It is sad really.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Just AnotherPerson For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (05-24-2018)

  8. #15
    Points: 93,392, Level: 74
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 1,358
    Overall activity: 99.5%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassSocialVeteran
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    282715
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Madison
    Posts
    45,559
    Points
    93,392
    Level
    74
    Thanks Given
    32,357
    Thanked 14,076x in 10,935 Posts
    Mentioned
    201 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Some people believe cancer is new. Some people muddle together local pollution problems with a changing climate.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MisterVeritis For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-24-2018),stjames1_53 (05-24-2018)

  10. #16
    Original Ranter
    Points: 463,748, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 67.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    413179
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    141,941
    Points
    463,748
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    81,719
    Thanked 64,152x in 43,836 Posts
    Mentioned
    2153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Just AnotherPerson View Post
    It's all hypothetical really, because none of us "really" knows what will happen. It is more like an educated guess. My position could be considered "dramatic" or "extreme" But what I do know is that we are already seeing the effects of pollution. Cancer and other diseases are just the norm now. It is a product of our environment and our consumption and lifestyle. We are evolving in our own way. Life does adapt as long as it can. But we may have to live as sick people, and our quality of life may suffer. But as for the dramatic version it could happen. None of us really knows what exactly will be the consequences of our actions.

    You are correct most people don't have an interest in destroying the earth with pollution. Even the mega corporations are not looking that far ahead I am sure. Money is the bottom line and they are not able to see past today nor do some of them care to. They are in it for the moment. I am sure the goal is not to cause destruction but sadly in many of the cases that is the outcome. It is the consequence of the action. Even if not intended. I think most people "common plebians" would not want to participate in global pollution and would choose alternatives if presented or available. Life is hard and people take the path of least resistance.

    Ah Yellowstone. I was really just arguing a point there. My bad. Perhaps there would not be complete extinction you are correct there. But it is possible that it could cause and ice age and I am not really sure what all would go down with that. I am not sure anyone really knows what would happen.

    What I do know is that this topic is no longer something that only the future generations need to worry about it is affecting us as we speak. We are now living in the world that has become more toxic, and we are suffering the consequences. If we are suffering this now with the way things are as they are, then how much more so will we suffer when regulations are wiped away, and accidents become the norm. The things we face now are already great, and more than we can handle, how will we handle another fukushima, or BP? There are many more to come. In china people already buy air, its already happening. It is sad really.
    I think the projections for Yellowstone were based off studying the geological record of the last super-eruption. So a new one could be similar, worse, and less destructive.

    Regulations are not going to be "wiped" away, only the overly burdensome ones. Many regulations are written by lobbyists of mega-corps- who have hordes of employees just for regulatory compliance, for the sole purpose of forcing their smaller competitors out of business, because they can't afford it.

    I have long said our business legal codes need to be reformed. I would suggest having separate codes for large corporations and smaller businesses. Both operate differently and represent different levels of risk.
    Alea iacta est

    Check out the blog.


  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    stjames1_53 (05-24-2018)

  12. #17
    Points: 20,670, Level: 34
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 80
    Overall activity: 86.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3781
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    South Carolina now.
    Posts
    9,810
    Points
    20,670
    Level
    34
    Thanks Given
    15,518
    Thanked 3,772x in 2,926 Posts
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Just AnotherPerson View Post
    I failed to answer because "checks" was a diversion tactic. I did not mention anything about checks, and sending money to anyone has nothing to do with the topic.

    1 billion years ago this place was not suitable for man so we weren't here. TRUE
    So then should we quickly make conditions unconducive once again so that we can cease to be?

    You really can not say anything about my footprint you do not know how I live or how I do my part in taking care of this planet. You can say anything you want but it is empty because you do not know. I would not be talking about taking care of the earth if I wasn't doing it already.

    Anyways there are ways that we can still live normal modern lives and not destroy the earth. We just need to change our ideas. We need green energy. there is no reason that we need to be burning coal come on really? There is no reason we should be using oil for fuel. There is no reason we should be using nuclear energy to boil water. There are other methods we could learn to use. It does not mean we need to become weirdos like the pita people and run around naked in the woods. It's not like that. It is about having a sound mind, and being able to put two and two together, and doing things right.

    This is an old argument. Nikola Tesla had it from the beginning. But he was shut down by the mega corporations of his day. But it wasn't Tesla who lost anything. He knew it was a loss for all of humanity for all of time. We are still stuck in the same mindset as then, and being manipulated by the continuation of the same mega corporations that shut down the path for a world that was bright where war and suffering would cease and all could live with their basic needs. Because, in a world like that they aren't needed, and they cant exist as they do now. So the wars and the global destruction must go on for them to be in existence. It is all about power and money. If only the people could see it.
    The whole point is what are you doing? Don't drive and don't use any transportation but your feet? Don't heat or cool your home? Grow your own food? Make your own clothes after weaving the cloth?

    You people don't have a clue what to do. If you think the world is going back to the stone age you're crazy.
    Democrats are a clear and present danger to our democracy and our society.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Captdon For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (05-24-2018)

  14. #18
    Points: 95,700, Level: 75
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 1,650
    Overall activity: 64.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    donttread's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    78133
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    32,051
    Points
    95,700
    Level
    75
    Thanks Given
    4,432
    Thanked 10,098x in 7,590 Posts
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Just AnotherPerson View Post
    I am mostly worried about our children and our children's children. It would be nice if they all had some clean water to drink while they are alive. We don't know how long man-kind will exist. What I do know is that once a life has been created it seeks comfort and runs from suffering. All beings no matter they be human or animal or insect we all choose to live in comfort. We all need basic conditions for life.

    Clean air

    Clean water

    We should protect it in any way we can just in case.

    Of course what you said is true about Hawaii. That is why I used Leilani estates as an example in my prior post. I mentioned as well that there are natural cycles and disasters that could change it all in a minute. That is why I am saying global warming is the wrong argument.

    But we can all agree that pollution is destructive and destroys conditions for life.

    You cannot say oil spills are harmless or that nuclear bi product is harmless. Pollution destroys and it kills. Life was not meant to live in those conditions.

    I have investigated green energy and have done so for the past 30 years.
    And of course we cannot force a corporation to do a thing. But remember we also could not force Monsanto to label gmo's. But guess what now corporations are aware that non gmo is what the buyer wants so they clearly label anything non gmo that is non gmo because it is a major selling tactic. No one needs to be forced. But what does need to be done is for them to stop forcing us to stay in the old ways. The mega corporations wield power and suppress those who would make a change. But one thing on the side of the future is that they are already betting on green energy and some are switching horses. But they wont switch until the resources are used up. It is much like technology. They already have years in advance of tech already invented, but the dole it out slowly so they can make the most money possible.

    There is money to be made in green energy. We could have the Tokamak or hydrogen plants, every home could have solar we could have more wind.
    We could mine the trash fields and recycle everything. We could re-Forrest all of the forests. We could easily make it all right. But corporate greed is holding back the whole future of humanity by their greed. They are stealing from you and everyone who breathes. They are taking something precious from us all.

    The answers are really simple not really rocket science.
    Population control would be more effective than stopping other countries from achieving success on the back of fossil fuels just because we already have. Pretty easy to sit in an air conditioned room, typing away with two cars in the garage and say stop emissions. A little different for the family burning coal to keep warm with no other options

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to donttread For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-24-2018)

  16. #19
    Original Ranter
    Points: 463,748, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 67.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    413179
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    141,941
    Points
    463,748
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    81,719
    Thanked 64,152x in 43,836 Posts
    Mentioned
    2153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by donttread View Post
    Population control would be more effective than stopping other countries from achieving success on the back of fossil fuels just because we already have. Pretty easy to sit in an air conditioned room, typing away with two cars in the garage and say stop emissions. A little different for the family burning coal to keep warm with no other options
    How would you control the population of the 3rd world nations who are the cause of the population bomb- and now China is ending its one child policy in hopes of evening up the man-female ratio.
    Alea iacta est

    Check out the blog.


  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-24-2018)

  18. #20
    Points: 93,392, Level: 74
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 1,358
    Overall activity: 99.5%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassSocialVeteran
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    282715
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Madison
    Posts
    45,559
    Points
    93,392
    Level
    74
    Thanks Given
    32,357
    Thanked 14,076x in 10,935 Posts
    Mentioned
    201 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by donttread View Post
    Population control would be more effective than stopping other countries from achieving success on the back of fossil fuels just because we already have.
    Shall we nuke them (back to the stone age)?

    Pretty easy to sit in an air conditioned room, typing away with two cars in the garage and say stop emissions. A little different for the family burning coal to keep warm with no other options
    Or should we nuke them (nuclear energy) forward to the 21st century?
    There is nothing wrong with fossil fuels.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to MisterVeritis For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-24-2018)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO