Why are you Green??? what do you dislike about the green Movement?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Binger

Well it could help to stave off global socialism.

Huh? That is possibly the dumbest statement I've seen from someone not running for public office :-)

Why can't people agree to disagree...

Well, they can. Last I heard there's still a Flat Earth Society.

...you believe that we cause the earth to heat up...

That's where you're wrong. It has nothing to do with belief. You seem to think physics is just a matter of belief, so why not try a small experiment for me? (You can even make it a thought experiment if you like.) Find a handy cliff, or a tall building. Tell me how high it is, then jump off. I'll use physics to calculate how hard you'll hit the ground, and you can try not believing in gravity.

I don't want the govt telling me to buy certain light bulbs, or forcing disproportinatly unfair global carbon taxes on us.

So you'd rather waste your money by buying inefficient light bulbs? Or pay disproportionately unfair income, sales, & property taxes?

[BrianAbington]

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't make a point with out emphasizing how stupid I am.

I know when it comes to math and science I'm a moron. I have the transcripts to prove it. However, as with anything in life you do a little bit of research and you can get a decent idea as to whats going on.

There are mathmatical formulas way beyond my comprehension that are used to calculate exactly what an object will do when you exert a force on it. It started out as a theory and became fact through experimenting.

The only proof I have seen for global warming is some made up charts from al gore. Yet when someone trying to prove global warming does an experiment it often ends up proving the opposite.
As an example:
Scientists have put sensors in the worlds oceans to monitor temp increases and they found that nothing has changed.


Home - Global Warming Petition Project
This is a website for a petetion of over 31,000 scientists who disagree with global warming.

From that website...
"Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of "global warming," a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful."

There are top people within the AMS who have said that meteorologists who disagree with global warming should have their meterological certification taken away.

This is being forced on us. Obamas very likley to waste billions if not trillions of our dollars on carbon taxes. This money would mostlikley be given to the UN to help fight global warming. What was the last thing that the U.N. did well? Covering up the fact that the blue helmets were raping the women in Africa that they were sent to protect?

I'm all about efficency. I have done everything I can to make our apartment as efficent as possible, including switching to CFLs.

I just don't think that governments should mandate that you use a certain type of bulb.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Binger

There are mathmatical formulas way beyond my comprehension that are used to calculate exactly what an object will do when you exert a force on it. It started out as a theory and became fact through experimenting.

The only proof I have seen for global warming is some made up charts from al gore.

Then you can't have looked very hard. There are similar formulas used to calculate what X amount of CO2 does in the atmosphere. They were first figured out (with pencil & paper) by a guy named Svend Arrhenius (not sure if that's the correct spelling) back around the year 1900 - long before Al Gore came along. CO2 has been measured at the Mauna Loa observatory since the '50s, about the time Gore was still in diapers. See here for more: The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

Yet when someone trying to prove global warming does an experiment it often ends up proving the opposite.

But your experimental example does nothing of the sort. Ever try to boil a pot of water? When you set it on the stove, does it boil right away, or does it take time to heat up? Same with global warming: the ocean is the last place you'd expect to see evidence.

In addition to which, looking for evidence of warming is like figuring out about gravity from examining the squashed corpse at the foot of the cliff - the point being that if you'd bothered to understand and use the physics, you could have predicted the results, stayed well back from the edge, and avoided the squashing.

This is a website for a petetion of over 31,000 scientists who disagree with global warming.

Including such distinguished names as Drs. M. Mouse and D. Duck :-) Really, that thing has been around for years, and has repeatedly been shown for what it is: a fake. Why are you so ready to believe obvious frauds, without doing any sort of checking?

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy...

The reality is that your energy use and so on are rationed now, by your ability to pay your power bill and so on at the end of the month. Using energy more efficiently means that in fact you would be less rationed, since you could e.g. have light for a lot less cost, or drive further on a dollar. And if the energy you use comes from wind, solar, nuclear, or geothermal instead of coal & oil, how does that threaten your freedom or quality of life? Seems to me that if they're affected at all, they'd be improved.

Can't you see this and all the rest for what they are, nothing more than pure scare tactics? Fear those black helicopters, folks, and keep sending your money to Exxon, Peabody, and the Saudis.

[shovel]

I'm not green, but my lifestyle has always been lagom.. "enough" has always been enough for me and generally what saves energy saves money, what reduces waste saves money. It just seems like the right thing to do on its own obvious merits.

What I hate is nearly everyone "green"'s denial that the solution to man made problems is to reduce man.

If we are to admit that we are inseparable from nature, then anything we do is natural.. so there's no reason to care one way or another. To tell another man he can't pollute is like telling a lion he can't roar, you know?

But if we are to declare that we are a separate entity from nature somehow, then we must acknowledge that what harm we do is in direct proportion to how many of us are doing it. 100% of everyone on earth could drive a hummer everywhere with no impact on the earth's atmosphere.... if there were only a million of them. Dig? But we have >6 billion people and it shows. The solution to man made problems is to reduce man. Until we do that, we may as well be shoveling sand against the tide with a teaspoon.

I don't have children. I have ensured surgically that I can't have children. My net impact on the earth with my <20 mile per gallon SUV is microscopic compared to someone who rides a moped, has kids who ride mopeds, and whose kids' kids ride mopeds ad infinitum. Frankly I don't want to hear any environmental snobbery from anyone who has made more humans because there's nothing they can do to be greener than my terminal bud of the family tree.

Another thing about "greenies" that infuriates me is their refusal to accept partial solutions. As an example, ethanol to fuel internal combustion engines is often contested because it isn't as low-impact as solar presumably. No duh! Ethanol is not a complete solution to the fossil fuels problem - but it's a bridge in the right direction and it's one of the easiest ones to implement - because it distributes, pumps, and burns in every piece of infrastructure we already have. Nobody needs to buy a whole new car and throw away their old one, any gasoline car can be retrofit at a negligible cost - a cost that becomes far lower if mass acceptance breeds mass production. "Green" folks who oppose partial moves in the right direction only because they're incomplete... they make me spittin' mad for sure.