Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
2015 is hottest year on record by far
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="grasping the after wind" data-source="post: 68373417" data-attributes="member: 256417"><p>I think the planet is above being abused by anything limited to its surface. It is basically a ball of molten material with a small cooled outer crust and has no feelings or intelligence therefore is not able to be abused or even threatened by any inhabitant of it. The environment is much less invulnerable and might be considered abused if one leaves off the personification inherent in that term. The question is what is abuse in the case of the environment and what is simple use of resources? If breathing is abusing the environment then I guess the carbon Nazis are right but IMO there is a difference between emitting noxious fumes from a smokestack or tailpipe and breathing out CO2. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that is necessary for photosynthesis. AGW , if it actually exists, is not abuse of the environment it is simply a matter of human activity causing the surface temperature to be warmer than it was for a limited period of time prior to the present. Most people do not see the apocalyptic catastrophe in that that the zealots insist upon. Using flawed computer models as well as purposely rigged ones to paint a doomsday scenario does not bolster thier case.. If the zealots would leave off using the term "denier" for any one that is skeptical about any part of their belief system people might actually take them more seriously. Use of that term casts them in the role of zealots that are intolerant of anyone that does not buy into every bit of their hysterical "sky is falling" scenarios. Another thing that might help them gain credibility is to stop insisting that they can use correlation and anecdotal evidence as proof but no one else can use it in opposition to their arguments. They come off as unreasonable ideologues rather than thoughtful reasonable people with a case to be made.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="grasping the after wind, post: 68373417, member: 256417"] I think the planet is above being abused by anything limited to its surface. It is basically a ball of molten material with a small cooled outer crust and has no feelings or intelligence therefore is not able to be abused or even threatened by any inhabitant of it. The environment is much less invulnerable and might be considered abused if one leaves off the personification inherent in that term. The question is what is abuse in the case of the environment and what is simple use of resources? If breathing is abusing the environment then I guess the carbon Nazis are right but IMO there is a difference between emitting noxious fumes from a smokestack or tailpipe and breathing out CO2. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that is necessary for photosynthesis. AGW , if it actually exists, is not abuse of the environment it is simply a matter of human activity causing the surface temperature to be warmer than it was for a limited period of time prior to the present. Most people do not see the apocalyptic catastrophe in that that the zealots insist upon. Using flawed computer models as well as purposely rigged ones to paint a doomsday scenario does not bolster thier case.. If the zealots would leave off using the term "denier" for any one that is skeptical about any part of their belief system people might actually take them more seriously. Use of that term casts them in the role of zealots that are intolerant of anyone that does not buy into every bit of their hysterical "sky is falling" scenarios. Another thing that might help them gain credibility is to stop insisting that they can use correlation and anecdotal evidence as proof but no one else can use it in opposition to their arguments. They come off as unreasonable ideologues rather than thoughtful reasonable people with a case to be made. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
2015 is hottest year on record by far
Top
Bottom