|
PhantomDrums917 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
At 1:46 it almost looks like human construction going on. Those corners are so perfectly cut square you'd swear this was engineering. Is that how those pieces actually broke off or was there some intervention involved?
slickvic539 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MegaMonkeyExtreme I see. So we are talking about different thing. I though the topic is about Artic ice melting, so naturally when people talk about do something, they talk about stopping man made global warming, obviously this is not your point then. Anyway, I agree that we should deal with pollution problem and preserve our natural resource, loving our planet is everyone's responsibility, that is for sure.
MegaMonkeyExtreme (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@slickvic539 I don't deny this.
MegaMonkeyExtreme (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@slickvic539 I understand your point, but by 'polluting' I meant 'emitting' in general. But I'm fairly sure Beijing smog is not sand. In the lead up to the Olympics, the government didn't put up great big sand barriers, they took cars off the road, to reduce smog. I also never specifically, pointed out Carbon Dioxide...
slickvic539 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MegaMonkeyExtreme PS., to support IPCC's so call "scientific" evidence and finding, if we want to reverse the current " green house" effect, the mathematical result is that we have to completely stop any carbon dioxide emission related activities for at least 20 years. ................For your information, Kyoto treaty meeting, each time they had spent huge amount of carbon dioxide due to private jets and limos...., ain't it absurd?? Gore's house? ain it absurd
slickvic539 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MegaMonkeyExtreme Now you pointed out "pollution" that is something else. People have a common mistake of mixing concepts, hence causing wrong perception. Pollution is harmful and toxic emissions, Carbon Dioxide is not. Beijing's pollution is neither, it was causing by over harvesting on root plants over the big west, which in turn causing sand storms. As what has been lost if we change, you will loose everything, mainly civilization, if we stop emitting carbon dioxide.
slickvic539 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MegaMonkeyExtreme Um... "to at least try". You mean having your life go backward, or having the life of already shitty 3rd world country go backward? The IPCC trick including all the "scientific evidence" that you had pointed out, are not to "try to save the world" but to support some other agenda. Cap and trade, Carbon Tax are not going to save the world. Beware of "green" it could =" Fascism"
MegaMonkeyExtreme (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@hellobil (continued)... change our modern society's obviously polluting habits? I'm sure the people of heavily polluted cities like Beijing would appreciate some clean air. If all of our scientists are wrong (which they aren't), what has been lost if we change? Nothing, we GAIN. But if they are right (and they ARE) and we continue to waste time debating whether or not they are right, and how much it will cost and NOT doing anything, we lose a LOT.
MegaMonkeyExtreme (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@hellobil So its all a big, joint conspiracy by... virtually EVERY credible scientist and science organisation around the world? The billion year old records are air samples from the ice in the Antarctic. And besides all that, is simply saying 'there is no evidence it is' a good enough reason to not do anything? Until there is substantial, overwhelming and unanimous evidence to say that climate change is NOT caused by human activity, does it not seem logical to at least TRY and...
hellobil (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@nordicmuscle The fact is, there is no solid evidence that global warming is man made. ( all people are relying on are psuedo science IPCC stuff ). When you say that it is much faster, well the fact is, we don't have record from billion years ago, so we are unable to say that it wasn't happening at the same gradient. Our media has falsely "predefine" the "rate" for us to follow some kind of hidden agenda. |
