What do you guys think of the Cap and Trade Proposal.

[nullArray]

Its not global warming, its a human induced climate change, which includes things like deforestation, increased urbanization of land, rising population numbers, air pollution, massive reductions in fish stocks and converting yet more land into farms. How can you say that the impact of global industrialization in the last 100 years has had no impact on the climate? Carbon di-oxide levels are a very small part of this portfolio of problems. When people talk about global warming they are ignoring lots of other things, and yes it has been hijacked by political activists, but that doesn't discount the fact that we are having a negative effect on the planet as a whole.

As for the youtube documentory, its a typical Channel 4 pseudo science hatchet job that has a lot of quotes and opinions but lax on actual science. It was made for entertainment value, and not for an actual unbiased view on the subject. Here is the debunking:

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...3/science.media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Glo...Warming_Swindle

Climate change isn't something you can dismiss with a TV show.

Thanks VaKo...,

People always says "the earth goes from hot periods to cold all the time." Atmospheric tests made a link between greenhouse gasses and those hot and cold periods. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and there is far more in our atmosphere than would be naturally. Even if we are in a natural warming period, we're accelerating it to a level the earth may not be able to handle.

Ironically, many of the folk that say "the earth goes from hot periods to cold all the time" frequently also say that the earth is 6000 years old. Very contradictory.

VaKo made an interesting point about it's only a debate in America..., purely speculative, but I'd like to think it's because corporations are pumping money into politicians/news organizations/fake science companies/etc to cloud the field, create controversy, and spread lies...

Oh well.

[Zimmer]

because corporations are pumping money into politicians/news organizations/fake science companies/etc to cloud the field, create controversy, and spread lies...

That can be attributed to those pro global warming as well using the leverage from fear to get what they want, power and money

Ironically, many of the folk that say "the earth goes from hot periods to cold all the time" frequently also say that the earth is 6000 years old. Very contradictory

Give me the scientists that say that.

we're accelerating it to a level the earth may not be able to handle.

is it the earth that can't handle it or those who want Florida to stay the same heat, and the politicians and scientist who want there money and power... There have been times that the earth has been wormer and even if it is happening faster now (evidence? Computer Models that have the Greenhouse Gas 10 fold of the real measure). People and the earth have handle the heat before it is just those who don't want change on them but on others that like global warming (politicians and scientist want to keep money and power to stay the same NO change, eviromentalist want to keep power).

[still learning]

That can be attributed to those pro global warming as well using the leverage from fear to get what they want, power and money

Give me the scientists that say that.

is it the earth that can't handle it or those who want Florida to stay the same heat, and the politicians and scientist who want there money and power... There have been times that the earth has been wormer and even if it is happening faster now (evidence? Computer Models that have the Greenhouse Gas 10 fold of the real measure). People and the earth have handle the heat before it is just those who don't want change on them but on others that like global warming (politicians and scientist want to keep money and power to stay the same NO change, eviromentalist want to keep power).

You just sounded like a complete douche bag again, and you suck. Theres no global warming? Thats like the French not beleving that WW2 happened or that Americans landed on the moon.

[Machstorm]

Thanks VaKo...,

People always says "the earth goes from hot periods to cold all the time." Atmospheric tests made a link between greenhouse gasses and those hot and cold periods. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and there is far more in our atmosphere than would be naturally. Even if we are in a natural warming period, we're accelerating it to a level the earth may not be able to handle.

Ironically, many of the folk that say "the earth goes from hot periods to cold all the time" frequently also say that the earth is 6000 years old. Very contradictory.

VaKo made an interesting point about it's only a debate in America..., purely speculative, but I'd like to think it's because corporations are pumping money into politicians/news organizations/fake science companies/etc to cloud the field, create controversy, and spread lies...

Oh well.

There is not a definite link between CO2 and global warming. The study that you guys imply but do not refer to was inconclusive because when the CO2 was up sometimes the earth was in fact cooler. so don't believe everything you are told by the liberals. Also you people also forget that the Sun (yes the Sun) also contributes to global warming. Just look at what happens when the Sun goes through it's 11 year cycle. The earth gets warmer because of the Sun for the most part. There is no proof that we are accelerating it and I would like to see your proof or logical explanation that it is other than someone told you or reading bad journalism.

I am not against cleaning up the environment, but I will not buy into half truths.

For your viewing pleasure:

http://www.pjtv.com/video/PJTV_Daily/Globa..._Meltdown/1608/

http://www.pjtv.com/video/PJTV_Daily/Globa...onference/1510/

I'll upload a link to the report when I can find an internet link

[Whedgit]

I'm going to simply assume we are all coders and if not then at least we have dabbled in it...

Imagine the largest program ever....one large enough to control this entire planet.... Now take into account all of the variable needed to just create such an output... One would have to account for every molecule, grain of sand, fly, bird, cat, dog, human, car, factory, essentially every single thing that exists.

Now make everything move with all the laws of physics and matter.

Every single living entity with free thought to do whatever they choose.... Even more variables to modify the program.

This program would be enormous and ever changing, the butterfly effect for example.

Now with all of those variables working with, and against, each other how can anyone decipher any kind of concrete output to prove or disprove the chain of events for tomorrow?

This is our planet. Changed by every action, no matter how insignificant.

[Zimmer]

whedgit ok with that comparison, how did it come from nothing?

[VaKo]

Entropy.

[Whedgit]

whedgit ok with that comparison, how did it come from nothing?

so that i may better answer your question...how did what come from nothing?

[Zimmer]

whedgit the code in your example (it was more of a "stab" at evolution than a real question) :)

Vako Entropy???

Entropy - Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society. so Nothing deteriorates :)

[Zimmer]

Here is another article against global warming

When Al Gore lost his bid to become the country’s first “Environment President,” many of us thought the “global warming” scare would finally come to a well-deserved end. That hasn’t happened, despite eight good reasons this scam should finally be put to rest.

It’s B-a-a-ck!

Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past--such as Alar, global cooling, the “population bomb,” and electromagnetic fields--were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson’s anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite.

The scientific case against catastrophic global warming is at least as strong as the case for DDT, but the global warming scare hasn’t gone away. President Bush is waffling on the issue, rightly opposing the Kyoto Protocol and focusing on research and voluntary projects, but wrongly allowing his administration to support calls for creating “transferrable emission credits” for greenhouse gas reductions. Such credits would build political and economic support for a Kyoto-like cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

At the state level, some 23 states have already adopted caps on greenhouse gas emissions or goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. These efforts are doomed to be costly failures, as a new Heartland Policy Study by Dr. Jay Lehr and James Taylor documents. Instead of concentrating on balancing state budgets, some legislators will be working to pass their own “mini-Kyotos.”

Eight Reasons to End the Scam

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.

Time for Common Sense

The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.

It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.

From http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results..._Is_a_Scam.html

Oh and for the horable act of deforestation

Lots of Americans feel bad when they see images of trees being cut down, because they've been told that America's running out of forestland.

Carl Ross, of the group, Save America's Forests, says we've cut way too much.

"The loss of natural forests in America is a crisis," he said. "And we will lose species forever, and they'll go extinct, if we don't take action now."

Other environmental groups run ads warning of the dire consequences.

But The U.S. Agriculture Department says America has 749 million acres of forestland. In 1920, we had 735 million acres of forest.

We have more forest now. How can that be? One reason is technology that allows us to grow five times more food per acre — so we need less farmland. Lots of what once was farmland has reverted to forest.

But Ross says we don't really have more forests. "We have more areas, in America, with trees on them, that's true. But we have less that are natural," he said.

He's right that many of the oldest trees have been cut down, and about 7 percent of America's forests have been planted by man, but that still means that 93 percent are natural.

Ross is also concerned that loss of old-growth forest is leading to a loss of biodiversity. But while some species have decreased, the populations of many others animals have actually increased in the past 75 years.

Michael Shermer says many people believe America is destroying the forests because environment groups need to scare people to raise money.

"The fear is there," he said, "because, if your goal is to raise funds you have to scare people. You can't tell people things are getting better, and here's the data. You have to tell people things are worse."

The truth, however, is that today in the United States there are two acres of forestland for every single person, and America is growing more trees than it cuts.

From http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606

Also here is a link on overfishing

http://www.fishnet-usa.com/then_now.html

^To long to quote

[VaKo]

Zimmer, regarding your signature size, I have told you before to keep it short. A huge selection of images is not short. If you keep pushing me in this way I will temp-ban you, understand? This isn't about me reacting to what your posting, I truely enjoy a good argument, so don't take the piss.

[VaKo]

Regarding your arguments, they are all focusing on America. Why? Climate change is a global issue, its not just limited to a theoretical debate in the US. Even China, the worlds biggest polluter is starting to take a more proactive approach to this than sections of the USA (Like baring a Chinese firm from buying the rights to make Hummer cars due to the pollution they cause). We need to stop burning fossil fuels for a variety of reasons, they are inefficient, radioactive, release tons of carbon into the atmosphere (carbon that was capture over hundreds of thousands of years) and most importantly running out.

I keep saying this but your not listening, global warming is a misnomer, you need to look at the impact that humans are having as a whole on the planet, not just focus on one specific tiny area of science neither of us can claim to fully understand and hope that a barrage of what are essentially un-corroborated blog posts will silence your critics. Humans in the last 200 years or so have suddenly developed technology which while allowing people on different sides of the planet to argue, has also had a huge impact on the planet. It is very poor form to attempt to use examples of natural climate fluctuation caused by volcanoes or the sun's energy output being variable to cover up the fact that our ability to alter the world around us to suit one species is having an impact.

You keep talking about jobs being lost and costs rising, why will jobs be lost? If America gets off its arse and uses the huge lead in technology it built up after Great Wars then it could become a net exporter of new, cleaner and more efficient methods of energy or food production. The longer people like yourself push for this type of development to be sideline, the more chance that China, India or Europe will beat you too it.

As for a dig at evolution, I won't debate you over that because as far as I am concerned its akin to arguing about the world being flat.

[h3%5kr3w]

OOOOO!!! DOUBLE POST DOUBLE POST!!! (Just kidding Vako! :P)

I am still not talking about the global warming but I will say this about one thing you said Vako.

If America gets off its arse and uses the huge lead in technology it built up after Great Wars then it could become a net exporter of new, cleaner and more efficient methods of energy or food production.

The sad reality of this is (and has been for quite some time) American scientists do create great feats of technology in all different forms... Unfortunately they are most unanomously employed by companies that have either origin or most of it's base and manufacturing overseas, so we actually almost never own the technology, or if an American company or organization does, they usually end up selling it to an overseas owned company (hence why almost EVERYTHING is either made in China or Mexico..) So then to top that off, by the time we get it, the price is littered with shipping and trade costs.

[Zimmer]

Um Vako do do you forget bob_s original thread topic was a US law. Yes I do find it said that we are shipping jobs elsewhere but in my opinion that is because of unions, we can't afford labor prices to compete with other places.

[Zimmer]

On your point about China etc being dirty polutioners we would not have a problem if everyone was at the level of pollution as the US but the US is considered to be dirty because there is this thing... it is called wind and it spreads the pollution around and the US is near Mexico, South America, China, and the rest of West (or East) Asia.

As for those blog postings I am quoting and linking to them because they show a difference of opinion and reason.

Here is a pdf (html-google.com) http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:A9qhEq...=clnk&gl=us

Also developing countries will not be harmed by stop using coal, but there is not a need to force it sense air quality IS GETTING BETTER.

Forest ARE GETTING BETTER

Also for a view on the orignal topic on Cap and Trade see http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.p...omment.news.115

Of course the link show that those behind it are against global warming but where else can I get info that is against global bullshit then... well a site that is against it :)

[h3%5kr3w]

hey hey hey... let's all come together in the fight against double posting eh?

[Machstorm]

Vako, Vako, Vako we're all adults here so to say 'We need to stop" is out of the question. You like a poor marksman continues miss the mark. You can't just stop this or that it is not feasible. the infrastructure that is built in the United States is built around oil which makes it cheap. You like many other s forget this fact when you go around spouting half truths like "We need to stop burning fossil fuels". Are you going to pay the billions if not trillions of dollars we don't have in the U.S. to convert our infrastructure? No!

Yes, I am focusing on the U.S. because we cannot take care of the worlds environmental problems if we cannot take care of ours first.

"You keep talking about jobs being lost and costs rising, why will jobs be lost? If America gets off its arse and uses the huge lead in technology it built up after Great Wars"

If the cap and trade bill is passed jobs will be lost and our economy will suffer and the more our economy suffers the less money we will have to build things with our "huge lead in technology"

Debunking global warming

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/co...global_warming/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-48...ay-experts.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-W...cording-to-NASA

[VaKo]

Lets sum this up shall we, my position is that humans are having a negative impact on the planets ecology and climate (of which atompsheric carbon levels are a minor part) and as a result we should begin the process of transitioning to cleaner, less damaging lifestyles, farming methods and technology used for things like energy production or transport. This is a process I can see taking a generation before it really gets anywhere, but we still need to actually start this in enerst, with developed contrys like EU member states, Canada and the US taking a lead.

Your positions seem to be that there is no such thing as a human impact on the planet, and even if there is its to expensive to be worth doing anything about.

We're not going to agree on this one I can tell, I think your being incredibly short sited and failing to think beyond your immdiate concerns and you think I've become infected with a liberal ideology that bares no relation to the Facts as you see them. Am I right?

[digip]

Lets sum this up shall we, my position is that humans are having a negative impact on the planets ecology and climate (of which atompsheric carbon levels are a minor part) and as a result we should begin the process of transitioning to cleaner, less damaging lifestyles, farming methods and technology used for things like energy production or transport. This is a process I can see taking a generation before it really gets anywhere, but we still need to actually start this in enerst, with developed contrys like EU member states, Canada and the US taking a lead.

I totally agree with this view, and understand that there are some Americans who only think in smaller terms of localization, but we have an effect on the planet that happens globlaly, not just in say, Newark, NJ or Columbia, SC. What we do in every part of the world takes a toll globally, over time.

I don't see how anyone can deny the fact that humans and the waste we create have an impact on our daily lives and the environment around us. It has nothing to do with conservatives or liberals, or even independents. Nothing to do with the idea of global warming. It's not even a political concept, yet people make it out to be about choosing party lines or sides. Its about human life and what we do to impact it long term. I don't care what party you belong to, what religion you follow, or what nihilistic and gothic views you may have of the world, but humans have made an impact on the planet in many ways! Some of which are good, and some that are bad. Cleaning up the air, land and sea with this cap and trade program might seem like its a bad idea right now because of the "possible" (notice I said possible, as there are no definite facts to back this up yet - only opinions of the politicians who want to shake things up) loss of jobs, but in the long term, I think it will create more jobs. Especially in the science, technology and engineering sectors for people who come up with new ideas on greener technology as a whole. Science will expand, technology will expand, our understanding of the planet will change.

New ideas and a new way of life will transform what we have now, of high energy prices using damaging materials, to lower costing energy that has beneficial impacts on the environment around us. Someone has to make a change. We have to decide if we are selfish and say, give me my polluting technology today so I can save a few bucks while killing off everything around me, or give me something cleaner so that future generations may have a better tomorrow.

If we continue the way we are going now with no change in the use of oil, coal, chemicals, etc, (and lets think about how long we have been an industrialized civilization - less than 200 years) what kind of impact do you think we will make on the planet, say, another 100 years from now? How many species of plants and animals will be gone? What will the face of the planet look like? What of the population and their health? What kind of impact will we make, long term? If these aren't things you think or care about, then there is no debate to discuss, because you don't care what will come of the future, you only live for today and yourself, and don't think about anyone else or what impact it may have on future generations. What will your children, and then their children's children have to look forward to 50-100 years from now?

Smog, undrinkable water, fish with such high levels of mercury and toxins, no one can eat them, less livestock and sea life in general, genetically modified foods and plants in order to add in nutrients missing in soils...we are already seeing some of these things today. Who wants hormones in their milk? Who wants pesticides on their produce or runoff to their drinking water? Why are more and more people born with medical problems, such as cancer, altism, parkinsons, etc? What factors have changed in the past century to give rise to more of these things? Yeah, we got rid of the plague and some diseases can be vaccinated against after a child is born, but other things have cropped up and are on the rise in larger numbers. I believe this is from the foods we eat and the environmental factors around us, such as pollution and toxic wastes.

edit:

Another thing I want to add. Obama talked about these things when he was running for president. Part of his campaign was about green technology, and energy independence. Now that he is president and trying to do those things he promised to work torwards, people are all of the sudden against it? At least he is following through on those promises. This was one of the reasons he was elected...

[h3%5kr3w]

I am only going to reply on this, this one time, mainly because I want to be clear on my own views and not to leave a bad taste in everyone's mouths on your opinion of me. I tend to get sidetracked as I type out paragraphs on a subject (as you can very well tell) so here is my view of it.

Yes humans do have an impact on the planet. I do not believe in global warming as our government states it, however I do believe that we are poisoning the earth in many ways. I think that is where the real debate comes into play and gets people on the wrong sides of things between each other. It seems when you bring the government officials into it, you have people who want to destroy others views on it, and then you have nutty politicians who are strongheld to make money on it, but no one really sees where in the middle that the two grounds meet because of it. Let me elaborate.

For all you people who either do not live in the U.S. or do not follow the politics (I got out of it cause I was so sick and tired of it) here is the deal. You have two major parties that seek basically to destroy each other fundamentally in their credibility by going after their views on global warming.

You have the extreme liberals who say the world is going to end tomorrow unless you change, degrading you if you do not, and then want their hand out like they are the sole entity that caused you to do so like they are some super hero or something.

THEN...

You have the extreme republicans who would not listen to you if you said that there was a gunman behind them because they think they know what is best for everyone and there is no view better than theirs. When people do not see eye to eye with their views they call you out on it and try to make you out like a heretic. To make it even worse, if you believe in global warming, then they change gears to not only degrade you, but seem to make it their life goal to completely stifle any credibility that you have.

These two sides made everything into what everyone knows as 'Global Warming'. I believe the proper term for what is really happening is 'Humanic Global Affect'. Global Warming as the government has defined it, places us as the target and the sky as a bomb, if you will. Everything that I have seen and tried to learn about is nothing but political bullshit from both sides and has no real clarity. Now do I believe in Global Warming? No. But I do believe in the 'Humanistic Global Affect'. We need to get away from this term Global Warming because it is completely misleading, and to top it off, too dirtied with government agenda from both sides.

The reason why a lot of Americans feel that one group or another is sinister about this issue is because there have been too many fakes, too many shady practices, and too many lies on both sides of the fence. Unfortunately the major problem is there are many Americans that stick with either one side or the other, and as such their views get diluted with crap. I mean how can you seriously watch an Al Gore movie about global warming and take it serious when half of it was staged, and trying to be passed on as something that is happening right now, but at the same time how can you listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, insert republican here, when they just want to make landfills and acts like no one would ever be affected?

My view is this: We do pollute the earth. The major changes are on the ground, not in the sky. I do believe that the sky would follow suit someday if things were to not change since the industrial age, but they have changed, and are constantly changing into better, more clean energy. I also believe that things such as Volcanoes contribute to this, but it's also for the good. The suit and rock that Volcanoes blow out can kill you, but it will also add to the land and can be used for various things. I also believe that we are poisoning the earth with things like mass manufacturing of paper, where the process includes mercury to cure the wood. I believe that we need to change, but at the same time I do not believe you should scream that I am a dumb ass hick that cant change a tire or even be allowed to live just because you think the sky is going to fall tomorrow. I do believe that recycling is a humongous step in a mass process to better the QOL on earth, because as it stands we are extremely wasteful and with things that will take 100's of years to degrade into the earth. I do believe that the expansion of the human count is harmful in many ways at this point, but at the same time, I do not believe there is anything that will ever be done about it and if we do get to the point where we can colonize other planets, then I believe this will not be an issue. I believe that power consumption is NOT the issue, but cleaner, more powerful, and smaller points of energy creation is key to keeping everything kosher without having to resort to scaling back on human lifestyles.

My main concern is energy consumption, and really this is the whole point. It is the energy and materials that poison the earth, cloud up the sky, and make the QOL of earth lower than what it should be. Instead of telling everyone your a horrible person because you drive a Hummer, there should be people and organizations willing (and there are such organizations) to come up with better means to provide the same service.

Ill put it in better terms as I see it. Let's say you are running a server at work with 112TB worth of space in a non-virtual environment and you are running out of space. Sure you could just put serious caps on virtual drives, put mandantory limits on database expansion, backup, and etc. But it just wouldnt make sense. BUT a better way you could do it, is to buy and implement a cost effective SAN, run a low cost backend server, and use that until you could sell off the older server, so you could have the money effective in buying what you need for a full blown SAN with serious processing power and storage so that everything for the most part stays the same between the users. Yes I do understand there is a little tax on the beginning of it, but very small compaired to the big picture, and the users are only slightly affected.

This is actually the way that things are going right now. Slow but steady and working toward the big picture that we all want, but with minimal impact on everyone's wallet. The main issue I have with everyone talking about Global Warming, is that they don't see that were moving in the right direction. They think were doomed if we do not change right now. They want it accelerated, seemingly to the idea that they want it to the big picture right now. To me it feels like someone pushing a car up a hill, which that person is slowly but surely getting up the hill, but with a person with a whip behind them screaming for them to go faster. I think this is where we all really get upset by this topic because a lot of people are at the point to where even if they do believe that we have an impact on the earth, because of all the negativity surrounding the issue, they close up inside and go the complete opposite way.

What do you think about the way I feel about this? I feel I am in the right direction. I do apologize for all the negativity that I have given in my posts about this, but at the same rate we all have.

[ssmithisme]

h3%5kr3w,

That was an amazing post and I totally agree.

We need to find smarter ways of doing what we want to do.

Who agrees that we should start harvesting Hemp instead of trees?

[digip]

Who agrees that we should start harvesting Hemp instead of trees?

We should have never stopped. The constitution, declaration of independance, original american flags, boat sails, clothes, etc, were all made from hemp when America started. Thomas Jefferson even traveled the world to place like france to find better "hemp" seeds and came up with a better process to break down the stalks for making paper. It was also widely smoked and accepted by our founding fathers, and some think it may have contributed to the writing of the Constitution. They just had a show on the history channel about this the other day and how we used to have hundreds of acres allocated for hemp to manufacture things like boat sails, rope, cloth, paper, etc.

[h3%5kr3w]

hemp in all ways is a great plant. Weather for recreational *cough cough* or for making things with it. Plus there is no cure process like the way standard paper is produced.

Windmills should be greatly used at all expense in my opinion, along with solar panels. And when the hell are we going to start seeing some hydrogen cars??? I knew a guy who knew a guy (though that's always the case) that setup an F350 to where it ran off NOTHING but hydrogen, and all you had to do was put more water in it. Even if we used vast amounts of water, it would just vaporize into the air, and rain down back into the oceans/gulfs/lakes/ponds/my head, etc.. This is where we should be. And to top it off it would be a great maketing plan. Who wouldnt drive a Hummer that you just had to put water in? (cept me... I hate them but because I think they are ugly. Give me a real hummer any day though, cause at least it would have a real purpose of being ugly.)

[still learning]

Weed should be legal before alchohol.

Weed = peaceful

Drunk = often disruptive and crazy

Not to mention all the other great things hemp provides

[h3%5kr3w]

how tf did I double post?! sry folks!