The Board

Author	Topic: Enviromentalism is a load of crap
HCM Brain Candy	posted 10/23/03 10:23 PM I have to vent this out a little before I explode. Because enviromentalism IS a COMPLETE load of crap (actually a stronger word is in order but since I'm pushing it just saying "crap" I won't say it)! Enviromentalism has no basis in reality; it's just a bunch of pot-head dirty hippies who's screaming "is a tale told by an idiot who's sound and fury signifies nothing"!!!!!!!! http://www.evilcorporationslmt.com
Zoel (Moderator)	posted 10/24/03 2:37 AM um, BC, you need corey's hyper-pills
HCM Ionix	posted 10/24/03 7:58 PM I agree..... Environmentalism doesn't have a place in reality..... and BC does need hyper pills..... and a muzzle, too. http://google.com/ die die die die die die or die
HCM Ionix	posted 10/24/03 7:58 PM I agree..... Environmentalism doesn't have a place in reality..... and BC does need hyper pills..... and a muzzle, too. http://google.com/ die die die die die die or die
The radical communist	posted 10/24/03 10:26 PM No brain candy, YOU are full of crap! Look at all the news today about gloabal warming and all the species that are going extinct, and your telling me that wanting to defend these is a bunch of crap!? Go to hell, bastard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Zoel (Moderator)	posted 10/26/03 3:40 AM Communist, I warn you now; you tread on thin ice. BC happens to have this thing about global warming, namely that it's not real. You'd be surprised how much evidence he can pull up supporting the claim, too. Not that I want to delve too deeply into the debate, either, but the fact is that the environment is generally better in post-industrialised nations then it was ever before. Therefore, the best thing we can do for the environment is actually to encourage third world nations to engage in reckless industrialization, rather then continuing to strip-farm and engage in other environmentally degrading activities.
TheGirl	posted 10/26/03 8:42 PM As was decided this past of saturdays, I am a dirty hippie, left winger liberal. (But I still shave on a regualr basis) Oh dear! But regardless of this, global warming is crap. It really is, there is plenty of evidence providing this as true. With that, I have no more to say... TheGirl (MOHC) http://geocities.com/noturningback1 The TRIO!
HCM Brain Candy	posted 10/28/03 1:42 AM Hah!! Even Johnny agrees with that!!!! Eat that radical communist!!! http://www.evilcorporationslmt.com
TheGirl	posted 10/28/03 3:32 AM Although, to further continue on this rant of environmentalism sucks...Canada has lost millions of dollars, due to the Kyoto Treaty. The thing designed to fix global warming from CO2 emissions. To cut all those emissions you must cut factory hours, which cuts jobs. That is terrible policy! Plus if you would take the time, there is plenty of evidence to say that CO2 is not the cause. Therefore Canada is stupid and has lost millions of dollars, and jobs because of it. Further more! The kyoto Protocol is flawed. It allows China the second largest producer of CO2 emmisions, to continue on unscathed! It also allows for the sale of emission credits. This means that good environmental practice is for sale! This is atrocious! Russia has dozens of credits to sell. Purely by sheer size, they can sell all the unused credits. This is all very bad policy, and Canadians are dumb for signing such a waste of money and effort!!! that is all. MOHC Thegirl http://geocities.com/noturningback1 The TRIO!
thelazyper	posted 11/7/03 1:52 AM Even if you doubt the effects of global warming you have to realize that significant damage is done to the environment as a result of a lack of societal controls. New England is so goddamn cold in the winter because they cleared too much forest and their cattle grazed too much. What about dumping of nuclear waste? I think there's always a point at which you draw the line - and before I disagree with all you fools, I'm wondering where exactly that might be. I'd also like to see the evidence that global warming doesn't exist - how general is it in respect to geographical position and time? I'm lazy. And hungry
HCM Brain Candy	posted 11/7/03 4:36 AM Okay, whoever you are, let me put it to you this way; goabal warming is not caused by CO2; it is caused by the sun. Anyone who knows anything about astronomy will realize it is perfectly normal for stars to go through small cycles of expansion and shrinking. When this happens, duh, the output of heat and light from the the sun will vary. Increase the output, and logically the Earth will warm up. Decrease the output, and Earth will have a ice age. Also, if one examines the geological record, changes of temperature are what increases or decreases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, NOT the other way around as supporters of all this pointless environmentalist regulations would have us believe. As well, let us look studies that "support" gloabal warming. Let's take the IPCC. In it it uses words like "consensus", but the funny thing is the scientific definition of consensus. In science it means a very loose agreement when no one can actually reconcil each other's opposing viewpoints. Okay, for now at least that's all for gloabal warming. The one other point that you brought up that I can remember was nuclear waste... Yeah. Well, you see, I kind of know this subject well. About a year ago I wrote a research paper in defense of nuclear power. I take it you probebly don't want me to type the whole thing out so I'll address what I can remember what I said about nuclear waste. Well, first of all let's consider where this waste is put in the first place. It's placed in completly dry underground salt beds where no water (ever) flows trough. That's kind of why it was chosen for Nevada to be the site of disposel. So, there is no way the radioactive material can just flow out. Second, let's look at the containers the waste is stored in. Airtight, waterproof AND pressure proof containers. You might say, "but waste remains radioactive for a hundred-thousand years. There's no way the containers can hold up that long." Well, that's where half-life of elements come into play. Say, you take an element with a half-life of 100 years. What that means is that half of the given substance decays in 100 years. Then the new left over elements decay slower. What this means is that practically speaking, the waste's level of radioactivity DECREASES EXPONENTIONALLY as time goes by. So most of the radioactivity is gone in a little more than a hundred years. The containers can handle that. Plus, remember that water never flows in these areas. These factors make depositing the waste acceptably safe, with it being unlikely that no one will be even hurt by the waste. But, the waste could be even safer, but it is THE ANTI-NUCLEAR COMMUNITY'S FAULT THAT SUCH MEASURES HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN. America should reprocces its nuclear waste. Basically, remove the most radioactive portions of the waste, plutonium mostly, that can be further used to generate power. Thus we have more energy and even less safety concerns to worry about. However, there is concern that reproccing will lead to "nuclear poliferation" among other, poorer nations. Japan and Europe have BOTH BEEN REPROCCESING FOR DECADES, AND NO SUCH SPREADING OF NUCLEAR CAPABILITY HAS TAKEN PLACE. Well, I think that's all for now. If you're wondering why even bother with nuclear power I can respond, but you are probebly sick of reading this and my fingers are getting tired. http://www.evilcorporationslmt.com
thelazyper	posted 11/10/03 3:08 AM First off, I don't have anything against nuclear power. I think it's much better for the environment than most of the stuff we have now. Hydroelectric power, for instance, is guaranteed to slow the flow of water (conservation of energy). This means flooding of rivers and destruction of land and plants that are beautiful. My point was that _if_ you randomly dumped nuclear waste...like...anywhere you wanted...it would be a bad thing. My point was that you have to put controls on development at some point, right? But about global warming - yes, fluctuations in the solar constant; the sun's changes in energy output provide one factor for changes in temperature. Keep in mind, though, that just because there is one factor doesn't mean there aren't any others. That's like saying gravity is the only cause of downward force. I don't know enough to say that global warming is necessarily true, but I just don't think you can discount it so readily.
TheGirl	posted 11/10/03 3:47 AM The more Neg evidence I read, the more the glaring contradictions I find in regards to global warming worries. The world is dying anyways. Who cares The Girl http://gracefulexit.tripod.com/index.html My one place to be, my own website
HCM Brain Candy	posted 11/10/03 4:21 AM The big reason I go off on gloabal warming is that it just seems to be another issue the radical portions of the left have been shoving down our throuts. I'm not trying to be mean, as I know of many liberals who aren't so extreame; what's really sad is that Many of their policies are pushed for by a small fraction of the total number of liberals. This problem has to do with the fact that the majority of Americans could care less about many issues, so on both sides of politics, many times it's the crazy extreamists who take control, leaving the average American out in the cold. The big problem is that no one attends the primaries to decide who the candidates are, so the extreamists always get in. I heard that only 10% of eligable voters participate in primaries... 10%. And even in the main elections some 40% of voters don't vote. Whoa, I kind of got off on a little tangent there. It's not just that the sun plays a crucial role in gloabal climate, it's also the fact that in recent years evidence has been emerging that CO2 is driven by climate, not climate driven by CO2. And, as I mentioned earlier, most of the studies are unreliable. Yikes!! My show is about to come on!! Got to go! http://www.evilcorporationslmt.com
thelazyper	posted 11/10/03 5:02 AM bwahahah my push for some form of middle ground has succeeded. :-) I think. and I'll agree on your political thing. =)
HCM Brain Candy	posted 11/12/03 4:48 PM I'd say that an even bigger reason I don't like environmentalists in general is their rantings about "big business". Let's face it; in America, and even across most of the western world, big business has become a dirty word. Basically, if it's any kind of big business, it's straight from the depths of hell and should be sent back. And it's not just environmentalists that are doing it, this "big business is evil" mentality is held by others as well. Just look at Microsoft and all the fuss they raise about that. But that's not my main qualm with this subject. These people have a mental image of big business as money grabing, oppressive, bullies, and the like. But, the opponants, ESPECIALLY the environmentalists, have themselves become such an entity. I think you're from California, but here in Wisconsin, the WDNR (Wisconsin division of the DNR), has way too much power. Ask anyone with experiece dealing with them. I heard a story about a couple near Galvaston whose home was demolished because their home sat on land that was once, in eons past, a wetland, but which had long since dried up. When they pointed this out, the groups that puched for the demolition simply said, "For regulatory purposes, a wetland is whatever we decide it is." That's what's pissing me off. It's that these people supposedly hate big businesses and the like, but have themselves become as such. http://www.evilcorporationslmt.com
HCM Ionix	posted 11/12/03 8:37 PM I agree with BC, suprisingly. Fossil records propose that the sun and different fluctuating variables are the main cause of global warming. Eventually, we shall reach another ice age, get out of it, go into a "Greenhouse effect," go into an ice age, and so on. There is a direct link between simply the sun and global warming. Nuclear waste, however, is a different matter. Even if it has reached its 250,000 half-life, I believe the world will be gone by then. The way we are f***ing up the planet right now, we will destroy it in a relatively short time.
TheGirl	posted 11/13/03 1:15 AM boys, boys! Let's not get upset here. It's just the sad fact that some people are idiots and have no idea of truth. So, let's all relax, take a breath and move along in life! Shall we? http://gracefulexit.tripod.com/index.html My one place to be, my own website
HCM Brain Candy	posted 12/1/03 9:30 PM Hey, lazyper. Do they have policy debate where you are? I was curious because if they do, you could find oodles of evidence and arguments about environmentalism from either side and then some. http://www.evilcorporationslmt.com
Piltfox	posted 11/2/04 10:33 PM Ok. So like, I am pretty much a hippy, like my whole family is a bunch of tree huggers. But in reply to your very long and drawn out message. The one thing about this dumping nuclear waste you haven't addressed is the fact that there is sufficient evidence proving that global warming is happening and your right, the sun is the biggest factor, but since global warming is happening very slowly I mind you that as a factor .5-1.0 of the temperature is rising every ten years, and as you say about this nuclear waste being dumped on lakebeds, with global warming the polar ice caps have melted and sea levels have risen, whats to say that since they ARE dumping nuclear waste in LAKEBEDS, those lakebeds WERE filled with water at one point, and if they were filled with water and the sea levels are rising, than won't they be filled with water again? And because of that life will sustain in those lakebeds in which the radioactive wastes are dumped, now, since there will be water in those lakebeds, which you say there wouldn't be, why are you so insistent on thinking that there won't be water in those lakebeds in 100, or even 1000 years?

Weluvducsoha | Post New Topic