Uh oh another one jumps ship
- Thread starter Skull
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Got sources for that?
How about this:
We start out with the assumption that all people are equal. We find some way to work out a viable "pollution quota" for each person. We extrapolate that per population size to produce country quotas.
Sound fair?
Far_X
Contributor
I find it totally amazing that people refuse to believe without having absolute proof. Common sense should prevail on both sides but it does not.
The amount of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere is not a natural phenomena. The amount of pollution we dump into the rivers and seas is not a natural phenomena. The amount of toxic waste we produce is not a natural phenomena. We are stripping the planet's natural resources in unnatural quantities. Yet we are expected to believe that the planet will deal with this unnatural chemical imbalance because it always has done. "Life will prevail" is what people say. When we are all dead and buried and the last human being has dug her own grave, perhaps then, if there are any other species left alive. If you cannot see the flaw in your argument then there is no hope at all.
The amount of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere is not a natural phenomena. The amount of pollution we dump into the rivers and seas is not a natural phenomena. The amount of toxic waste we produce is not a natural phenomena. We are stripping the planet's natural resources in unnatural quantities. Yet we are expected to believe that the planet will deal with this unnatural chemical imbalance because it always has done. "Life will prevail" is what people say. When we are all dead and buried and the last human being has dug her own grave, perhaps then, if there are any other species left alive. If you cannot see the flaw in your argument then there is no hope at all.
What pisses me off the most is that when I object to people unrestrainedly spewing their filth into the air that I have to breath, and messing up the climate so much in the process that I'm not even sure if my children will have a viable future - I get described as a "cultist", and painted into some kind of political stereotype designed to belittle and denigrate my concerns.
This is the fundamental - "I'm better than you" - thinking that has alread led to the persecution and murder of countless groups of people, and whole nations/races, throughout the history of mankind.
I find it shocking to see it so brazenly displayed on this board.
underwasser bolt
Contributor
you're kidding, right? you think being called out on a scientifically dubious position is the same as murder? you are obviously then NOT a scientist. We put our very best ideas forward, sometimes years worth of work, and have it picked apart and criticized in a process called "peer review". Peer review is what is happening in "global warming", and the results are not kind. THAT IS SCIENCE, not the prelude to murder or in any way like it.
No - I didn't say that. I said that grouping people into groups that you can describe as "cultists" or other descriptors designed purely to put down and belittle others is the kind of thinking that led to some of the worst episodes in human history. There is no science in describing people as "cultists", or "tree huggers", or "liberals" - or any other POLITICALLY motivated expression. When politics has got that polarized historically, it has led to trouble - big trouble. I stand by my comment.
As far as the science is concerned:
Would you like to produce examples of this review process backed by published work from credentialed sources please?
So far all I've seen are a few economists saying - "I don't believe it" - hardly a comprehensive review process.
Who cares? those toes are the toes of the lazy a.ssed f.kers who would rather sit around waiting for the next great McDonald's commercial than get off their butts and do something. The fit of their underwear is more important to them than the hole in the o-zone layer....
Progress is generally not achieved by waiting for the stupid to catch up.
R..
This is strange coming from a scientic person. As far as I understood the above are just theories - not laws. I don't really understand it much - way over my head - but I recently saw a documentary about current thinking that strongly suggested that time does NOT behave in the predicted way. The suggestion was.....heaven forbid.....that Einstein might have got it wrong.
I just Googled to have a look and for starters found this:
E=mc2 is Wrong - Einstein's Special Relativity Fundamentally Flawed
Of course the difference between these types of theories and the topic at hand is that I don't really see how the behavior of time and space are going to threaten our way of life anytime in the near future.
Meanwhile - have you found any solid data to support your assertions about the relative pollution of the US & China? Or do you have any comment on my suggestion that fairly working out a "per person" solution might be a possible way to go?
Well Bryan already posted the link but maybe you missed it.
I think you'll find plenty of solid answers to your question here:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Similar threads
