Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by Man_of_the_Century at 2006-06-27 08:27:27

HailTheLeaf said:

Scientists have known the cause of it for over 30 years now, what debate are you talking about? You've gotta be the only person who doesn't know the cause of global warming.

Seeing how you only listen to web sites...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._change#Statements_by_organizations

ShadowSD said:

Why jump through hoops to justify the rationalizations of mass business? They'd tell you gravity is a theory if it meant they could get rich selling you space suits.

Ask yourself a few questions. Is business more loyal to science or profit? Are scientists more loyal to science or profit? Which group is more likely to be loyal to which goal?

I'm not trying to rationalize anything but we are slowly improving the enviorment. It takes time. We didn't destroy it over night and its not going to fix itself over night.

Business is out for the profit. It always has been. But the thing that people forget is any good business man would not try to ruin the planet and its people. If that happens, who's going to purchase thier product. Thats not to saythat it never happens, it just doesn't always happen.

Scientist should be loyal to fact. I say should, because they are human and can be convinced otherwise.

Who is more loyal to which goal is a hard question. You have both groups filling out into both science and profit. Which is why any time I hear about something (like global warming) I lookat both sides first. Then I validate the facts on both sides using neutral forms of information. I then make a choice on my own, just like I did here.

ShadowSD said:

So all we need is to keep the rest of the Earth in darkness for six months a year. Not only will it be cheaper for mass industry than lowering emissions, but they'll make a killing powering all the lights twenty-four hours a day for half the year. I think we owe it to the free market to make the sacrifice.

Nope, I was trying to say that the earth has the means to fix itself of the holes. CFCs take on average of 10-15 years to hit the o-zone layer. They were phased out of production in 1994. That means even though there are no more CFCs being pumped into the atmosphere, there still floating up there. Around 2009-2010 you should start seeing a reduction in the hole that stays. People just have to give it time.

[default homepage]

[print][

3:29:36pm May 20,2024
load time 0.02096 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]