More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[gnarlylove]

Abraham has a point regardless of whether you agree it applies to this issue.

Nobody can deny bigotry, self-deceit and delusions, corruption and an inability to adapt have been the primary reasons previous 17+ civilizations have ended.

Don't forget the Mayan civilization dissipated and abated due to climate changes (just not on the scale of today). Nature is interconnected and as Mayan population expanded they required more resources which accelerated dryer climates through deforestation and a change in rain patterns among other events.

Nobody denies we are consuming resources at massive volumes and without a doubt this has an effect on the whole ecosystem, our planet. Many say icebergs are the canary in the cave mine warning us of rapid degradation for our once almighty civilization. This is not necessarily the end of humanity, but a definite change with how we live and "consume." "Adaptation required," says climate change.

Hence, maintaining unwavering views in the face of global shortage is a risk our children's children will hope we avoid. If we believe nothing else, it is germane we learn how to consume less thereby respecting the balance required in nature to sustain our food production and water.

 

[gnarlylove]

Hubris is the classic Greek downfall. Deniers sound awfully proud "to be winning the battle." It's because our great civilization can coddle any belief they have at the moment but a century from now life will foist upon us new requirments that kill off the defective memes of the "skeptics," in my humble opinion. Since it's my opinion I am not opening it up for debate because I already know you disagree and will NEVER in a million years change your mind.

Over the past several centuries, the U.S. has cut down about 90 percent of the forests that once covered the continent, and what remains is still in peril. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, about 80 percent of the old-growth forestland is slated for eventual logging [source: University of Michigan].

HowStuffWorks "Did the Mayan civilization end because of climate change?"

 

[flacaltenn]

Hubris is the classic Greek downfall. Deniers sound awfully proud "to be winning the battle." It's because our great civilization can coddle any belief they have at the moment but a century from now life will foist upon us new requirments that kill off the defective memes of the "skeptics," in my humble opinion. Since it's my opinion I am not opening it up for debate because I already know you disagree and will NEVER in a million years change your mind.

Over the past several centuries, the U.S. has cut down about 90 percent of the forests that once covered the continent, and what remains is still in peril. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, about 80 percent of the old-growth forestland is slated for eventual logging [source: University of Michigan].

HowStuffWorks "Did the Mayan civilization end because of climate change?"

You DO need better reading material... Show me the 10% of forests that are left after we cut 90% of them.. That's sheer BullShit.. There are MORE trees in the US TODAY than pre-industrial eras..

And the theory that the Mayans boosted their regional temperature by 6degC by cutting trees??? This is one of the most MARGINAL views of Mayan decline.. PERHAPS their farming was problematic and led to resource issues, but DROUGHT and HEAT were NOT brought on by a couple million people cutting trees..

No wonder you're on a Don Quixote quest here... THe MASSIVE HUBRIS is attempts to exaggerate the resource depletion and portray mankind as a blight on the surface of the earth...

 

[skookerasbil]

Some people on this thread are worrying too much about stoopid stuff.......which tells me they need some real responsibilities in life to straighten their asses out.

If nature is taking us down, only bubble dwellars think there is some way for human beings to stop it.


Which gets to the whole point of the thinking of far left people.......they think there is a solution to every problem in the world.......that if we just collectively come together, we can solve any problem. Some scary shit.......

 

[gnarlylove]

You are quite the trickster. I said climate change, which is nothing more than a change in weather patterns--I clearly stated what I meant by this change. Their civilization was effected through deforestation which helped abate the unusually wet weather they had. Nobody denies they went from normally wet to dryer conditions. I didn't say the damning term global warming, why would I claim something so outrageous?

I think it's funny how you can only think in caricatures. 6 degree change is not what I said. Only someone with a huge vested interest in WINNING an argument over PRODUCTIVE DEBATE would characterize what I said that way. You must not understand context clues very well. I specifically said not on the scale of today.

In other words the Mayans had something to do with their own demise. I am saying that humanity can harm itself and the environment. Why do you vehemently disagree? Are you not able to act imperfectly? Why do you translate this into me saying "kick all of humanity off as we are a blight on the planet."

Man you're thinking displayed on this forum continually demonstrates your one true ability: mis-characterizing beliefs. I think humanity is wonderful in the things we have accomplished. Why do I need to tell you this? Why do I also need to alert you to the fact humanity can cause its own ruin--and has as history bears. How are you so thick headed you WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER admit that our rates of consumption are indeed increasing at massive volumes? You clearly think humans are impossible of harming themselves.

Ok, if that's the case you live in a totally different world than I do. The planet I live on takes time to regrow its forests, restore clear-cut areas. A neighbor has 30 of their 45 acres clear cut and 5 years latter there are virtually no trees but a ton of weed pollen and thorns. Another neighbor clear cut his 3 decades ago and its taken 30 years to grow a noticeable tree patches. It takes time on the planet I live to flush out the undeniably toxic sludge and unending road runoff we pour into our streams and drinking reservoirs and the ocean.

You must think the earth is unlimited. Only then would growth be sustainable forever. We need to take heed on how to live among the biosphere, not use it as a commodity!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

You are quite the trickster. I said climate change, which is nothing more than a change in weather patterns--I clearly stated what I meant by this change. Their civilization was effected through deforestation which helped abate the unusually wet weather they had. Nobody denies they went from normally wet to dryer conditions. I didn't say the damning term global warming, why would I claim something so outrageous?

I think it's funny how you can only think in caricatures. 6 degree change is not what I said. Only someone with a huge vested interest in WINNING an argument over PRODUCTIVE DEBATE would characterize what I said that way. You must not understand context clues very well. I specifically said not on the scale of today.

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE ROADRUNNER !!!!! You owe me an apology.. Because you don't read your own links to HowStuffWorks..

Without trees and their root systems to keep soil in place, erosion would have worsened, carrying away fertile topsoil, which would have crippled Mayan agriculture. Additionally, trees function as natural air conditioners, drawing water through their leaves and cooling the local air when the water evaporates [source: U.S. Forest Service]. You can experience this same effect if you live in a city. In a park with trees, it's going to seem cooler than it does out in a city block with just buildings and asphalt all around. Computer simulations indicate that the region's temperature would have increased by as much as 6 degrees Fahrenheit

YOU DID POST THAT ---- presumably because you ENDORSE the links you post..

NOT asserted because "I only have a vested interest in winning"..
Slow down and try to pay attention to the FACTS... And PLEASE try to respect SKOOKS thread by sticking to GW and renewable energy resources.. If you want to dive into the failed 70s Ehrlich Population Bomb and other myths --- I'll enjoy that in another thread..

 

[gnarlylove]

I like how you deny facts that make your views overtly ignorant. I don't think you can deny the University of Michigan so easily.
Deforestation

50% of America was forests. Now only 10% is left. Ever traveled? This is not hard to see and accept unless you resist the facts in order to fit your very tenacious and undeniably hubris view. When a person cannot admit their faults, that is the classic case of hubris. You just told me humanity is incapable of harming the planet (your word was blight but I don't like that word, it's too negative in connotation)

You think humanity can do no harm to the planet. That is hubris. Plain and simple.

Hubris exists less in those who doubt. I am doubting whether our current engagement of the world is ethically and environmentally sound.

Bertrand Russel said "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

When you say I need better reading materials what you means is I need to read what you've read and ignore what I've read. Sounds suspicious for intellectual honesty. But you wouldn't know intellectual dishonesty because you are exempt.

 

[gnarlylove]

I am sorry.

I am also sorry we can't have honest debate. My efforts to clear the air of equivocation only leads to you outsourcing links and saying I agree with them. What I agree to is I know little but what I know is that you have to be bat shit ignorant to deny humanity has no negative impact on this planet. And a little less bat shit crazy to deny that our vast global network of consumption and waste will have no discernible effect in the future.

edit: I know I need to clear up the fact that I said I know little. I don't doubt you'll take this as a reason I must be wrong. What I am really saying is it's awfully bloated to think you know how the world works in the grand scheme or that you can predict no discernible impact on the planet from our increasing consumption. That flies in the face of peer reviewed articles. If nothing else, humans are impacting the planet and it's a matter of how much not IF. We dont know the future as an exact science and hence I say we can know little for certain about the future But somehow you KNOW WITH GOD GIVEN CERTAINTY that humans have nothing to worry about and that global network of actions have insignificant consequences.

 

[flacaltenn]

I like how you deny facts that make your views overtly ignorant. I don't think you can deny the University of Michigan so easily.
Deforestation

50% of America was forests. Now only 10% is left. Ever traveled?? This is not hard to see and accept unless you resist the facts in order to fit your very tenacious and undeniably hubris view. When a person cannot admit their faults, that is the classic case of hubris. You just told me humanity is incapable of harming the planet (your word was blight but I don't like that word, it's too negative in connotation)

You think humanity can do no harm to the planet. That is hubris. Plain and simple.

Hubris exists less in those who doubt. I am doubting whether our current engagement of the world is ethically and environmentally sound.

Bertrand Russel said "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."


When you say I need better reading materials what you means is I need to read what you've read and ignore what I've read. Sounds suspicious for intellectual honesty. But you wouldn't know intellectual dishonesty because you are exempt.

MY INTELLECTUAL HONESTY??? You're confusing that with your inability to understand your reading material and lack of critical thinking bud... UMich is very DECEPTIVE and you have to be able to defend your intellectual integrity when you read BIASED analysis.. To wit.

Since 1600, 90% of the virgin forests that once covered much of the lower 48 states have been cleared away. Most of the remaining old-growth forests in the lower 48 states and Alaska are on public lands. In the Pacific Northwest about 80% of this forestland is slated for logging.

VIRGIN FOREST RoadRunner.. ORIGINAL TREES.. My city just lost a beautiful 600 yr old Oak Tree that was damn near WORSHIPPED by the community. Actually held a wake and distributed pieces of the tree to the community.. They DONT LIVE FOREVER.. Trees REGENERATE.. And THUS --- we are NOT DOWN to the last 10%... In fact, the forest cover has INCREASED slowly since 1900 in America..

Do you know how to EVALUATE what you read? Or do the facts simply serve as a tableware for your appetite for propaganda??

MY FAULTS?? MY LACK OF TRAVEL?? You havent left the basement for years apparently..

 

[flacaltenn]

You DID get Bertrand Russell correct..

Bertrand Russel said "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

What you SHOULD HAVE picked up from that is that the intelligient only get THERE by HAVING doubts.

 

[flacaltenn]

I am sorry.

I am also sorry we can't have honest debate. My efforts to clear the air of equivocation only leads to you outsourcing links and saying I agree with them. What I agree to is I know little but what I know is that you have to be bat shit ignorant to deny humanity has no negative impact on this planet. And a little less bat shit crazy to deny that our vast global network of consumption and waste will have no discernible effect in the future.

edit: I know I need to clear up the fact that I said I know little. I don't doubt you'll take this as a reason I must be wrong. What I am really saying is it's awfully bloated to think you know how the world works in the grand scheme or that you can predict no discernible impact on the planet from our increasing consumption. That flies in the face of peer reviewed articles. If nothing else, humans are impacting the planet and it's a matter of how much not IF. We dont know the future as an exact science and hence I say we can know little for certain about the future But somehow you KNOW WITH GOD GIVEN CERTAINTY that humans have nothing to worry about and that global network of actions have insignificant consequences.

Now that we know each other better.. I'll gladly share with you my misgivings about how people ACTUALLY abuse the planet.. Just not interested in the fictional, emotional version of the story.. You'll find that ecology and nature are among the most important values that I hold.

You'll have just as trouble getting your mind around that -- as I have with your consumption of subpar propaganda in lieu of intellectual nutrition...

 

[flacaltenn]

However RoadRunner -- I did NOT -- "outsource any links".. I quoted a link that YOU posted.

"My efforts to clear the air of equivocation only leads to you outsourcing links and saying I agree with them."

If you can't get beyond being caught flatfooted not READING the material that YOU cite, perhaps we don't want to have "a conversation"...

 

[gnarlylove]

I said I doubted our current methods of engaging the planet. Last time I checked that is doubt opposite of hubris. Hubris is to continuing normal conduct without consideration from outside yourself. I don't know what is up stream but thinking humanity has little to nothing to do with our future is just not realistic.

Why do you think I think trees never regenerate? Yet again you erect a strawman version so you can knock it out of the park. All your buddies are like "hell yeah, he is so smart and that liberal is so dumb."

The problem that I allueded to is that regeneration does not happen suddenly or instantly. It happens subtly and over decades. Once there is any significant imbalance, the region has many generations before it can be restored it its normal state. For example, America will not be 50% forests again for decades and maybe not for centuries.

Only when the land is unused, unmined and left fallow can the ecosystem restore itself as a rule of thumb. Of course food production can be increased by planting certain crops but no such technique is applicable to whole ecosystems or the globe.

The fact is we are consuming resources at never before seen rates. This means less and less regions are untouched. You clearly disagree that depletion of resources has anything to do with limits on production. Your answer is "keep the mills runnin' boys! We got plenty more elsewhere and when that runs out we'll go elsewhere and eventually return to our original spot!"

That's inaccurate because trends of resource extraction are increasing, not decreasing. What does this mean for those regions and real estate? Continued extraction and development prevents the necessary amount of time for an ecosystem to regenerate itself. We must take stock of not just how much America has leveled itself but how globally the same trends apply. I hope you can agree an ecosystem weakened by extraction and development cannot regenerate overnight. Each individual life form depends on the ecosystem remaining balanced. With continued depletion, what does this lead to?

It leads to the inability for the ecosystem to restore itself fully. Therefore many ecosystems will transform and adapt to new conditions since they cannot return to normal conditions. Indeed ecosystems are always changing (very slowly, not usually noticeable in a human life) and won't return to their normal state for potentially millennia once the global ecosystem is imbalanced. What was rainy once may become desert. That means bad news for food production. Famines are bad for poor people.

You seem to think none of this matters. That the world is so big we cannot possibly effect the planet. Fine, we disagree but your methods are mostly smear tactics using conservative talking points over and over to misconstrue my points rather than shutting your conservative motor off and just replying with genuine interest in the future of civilization. I'm not claiming you don't have an interest, it just seems your view makes agreement the most vile thing on the planet when its between a conservative and a non-conservative.

I can't claim anything without you disagreeing. It's very comical to watch the lengths you go to grasp at straws and debunk them. It is unbecoming of an intellectually honest, doubting person to misrepresent their claims intentionally, as I've demonstrated repeatedly.

The quote you posted bears little on my claim, which focused on decreased rainfall along with deforestation as the primary cause of the Mayan collapse. Whether I think it jumped 6 degrees is irrelevant. I was arguing the how the Mayans experienced a change in weather patterns which caused one of the most advanced civilizations to disperse and eventually lay in ruins. This story has relevance for us today: natural changes in climate along with human resource extraction brings about problems and famine. In other words, not living within our means can cause troubles down the road, as it has.

Why must you misconstrue so much? I've pointed out 10+ instances where you twist my words into dumb liberal stereotypes that I preemptively note are stupid so we don't get hung up over non-issues on which we agree already. Yet you continue to apply them as valid critiques to my posts. They are mere distractions from addressing what you know to be valid points, taken with a dose of skepticism of course. You're unwavering bigotry towards this "golden age" of human growth prevents any recognition that our actions may have consequences. Thus, our discussion bears no fruit. I doubt you would change your beliefs under any circumstance.

I'm trying to reach some basic consensus and you cannot nor will ever admit 1 single fault. I have continued to rework my beliefs since 15 when I began reading the Bible and have humbly noted my misgivings on this board when I'm wrong. The typical individual is a lot less like me, having formed their central beliefs by 19 they only do minor edits to peripheral views, almost never challenging their own core beliefs. I have undergone 4 major transformations from Christian and conservative to staunch agnostic and humanist to hedonist living on the streets with nothing but dumpster diving and needles with continual run-ins the the law. Now I espouse Taoism and it's path of inclusion. This is meant to show you I am very aware of how my beliefs can overpower any logic or evidence and once I realized I was on the wrong path it took time but I adjusted to what I believed to be the better path.

Don't come at me as if I am intellectually dishonest person who is more interested in shitting on you than healthy debate. It's clear where you stand. My pursuit of truth and better ways of living have strengthened my willingness to accept things I disagree with and adapt accordingly. You're view espouses loyalty, which has been an opposite of honesty--nodding to the royalty despite any internal hiccups.

If we engaged on an intellectually honest level, we wouldn't have spent the last 5 pages of discussion reaching no compromise. But when you say humans have little or nothing to do with pollution, deforestation, oil spills etc which in turn exacerbates ecosystem hiccups, you are using a defense mechanism to justify business as usual rather than participating in real intellectual dialogue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I said I doubted our current methods of engaging the planet. Last time I checked that is doubt opposite of hubris. Hubris is to continuing normal conduct without consideration from outside yourself. I don't know what is up stream but thinking humanity has little to nothing to do with our future is just not realistic.

Why do you think I think trees never regenerate? Yet again you erect a strawman version so you can knock it out of the park. All your buddies are like "hell yeah, he is so smart and that liberal is so dumb."

The problem that I allueded to is that regeneration does not happen suddenly or instantly. It happens subtly and over decades. Once there is any significant imbalance, the region has many generations before it can be restored it its normal state. For example, America will not be 50% forests again for decades and maybe not for centuries.

Only when the land is unused, unmined and left fallow can the ecosystem restore itself as a rule of thumb. Of course food production can be increased by planting certain crops but no such technique is applicable to whole ecosystems or the globe.

The fact is we are consuming resources at never before seen rates. This means less and less regions are untouched. You clearly disagree that depletion of resources has anything to do with limits on production. Your answer is "keep the mills runnin' boys! We got plenty more elsewhere and when that runs out we'll go elsewhere and eventually return to our original spot!"

That's inaccurate because trends of resource extraction are increasing, not decreasing. What does this mean for those regions and real estate? Continued extraction and development prevents the necessary amount of time for an ecosystem to regenerate itself. We must take stock of not just how much America has leveled itself but how globally the same trends apply. I hope you can agree an ecosystem weakened by extraction and development cannot regenerate overnight. Each individual life form depends on the ecosystem remaining balanced. With continued depletion, what does this lead to?

It leads to the inability for the ecosystem to restore itself fully. Therefore many ecosystems will transform and adapt to new conditions since they cannot return to normal conditions. Indeed ecosystems are always changing (very slowly, not usually noticeable in a human life) and won't return to their normal state for potentially millennia once the global ecosystem is imbalanced. What was rainy once may become desert. That means bad news for food production. Famines are bad for poor people.

You seem to think none of this matters. That the world is so big we cannot possibly effect the planet. Fine, we disagree but your methods are mostly smear tactics using conservative talking points over and over to misconstrue my points rather than shutting your conservative motor off and just replying with genuine interest in the future of civilization. I'm not claiming you don't have an interest, it just seems your view makes agreement the most vile thing on the planet when its between a conservative and a non-conservative.

I can't claim anything without you disagreeing. It's very comical to watch the lengths you go to grasp at straws and debunk them. It is unbecoming of an intellectually honest, doubting person to misrepresent their claims intentionally, as I've demonstrated repeatedly.

The quote you posted bears little on my claim, which focused on decreased rainfall along with deforestation as the primary cause of the Mayan collapse. Whether I think it jumped 6 degrees is irrelevant. I was arguing the how the Mayans experienced a change in weather patterns which caused one of the most advanced civilizations to disperse and eventually lay in ruins. This story has relevance for us today: natural changes in climate along with human resource extraction brings about problems and famine. In other words, not living within our means can cause troubles down the road, as it has.

Why must you misconstrue so much? I've pointed out 10+ instances where you twist my words into dumb liberal stereotypes that I preemptively note are stupid so we don't get hung up over non-issues on which we agree already. Yet you continue to apply them as valid critiques to my posts. They are mere distractions from addressing what you know to be valid points, taken with a dose of skepticism of course. You're unwavering bigotry towards this "golden age" of human growth prevents any recognition that our actions may have consequences. Thus, our discussion bears no fruit. I doubt you would change your beliefs under any circumstance.

I'm trying to reach some basic consensus and you cannot nor will ever admit 1 single fault. I have continued to rework my beliefs since 15 when I began reading the Bible and have humbly noted my misgivings on this board when I'm wrong. The typical individual is a lot less like me, having formed their central beliefs by 19 they only do minor edits to peripheral views, almost never challenging their own core beliefs. I have undergone 4 major transformations from Christian and conservative to staunch agnostic and humanist to hedonist living on the streets with nothing but dumpster diving and needles with continual run-ins the the law. Now I espouse Taoism and it's path of inclusion. This is meant to show you I am very aware of how my beliefs can overpower any logic or evidence and once I realized I was on the wrong path it took time but I adjusted to what I believed to be the better path.

Don't come at me as if I am intellectually dishonest person who is more interested in shitting on you than healthy debate. It's clear where you stand. My pursuit of truth and better ways of living have strengthened my willingness to accept things I disagree with and adapt accordingly. You're view espouses loyalty, which has been an opposite of honesty--nodding to the royalty despite any internal hiccups.

If we engaged on an intellectually honest level, we wouldn't have spent the last 5 pages of discussion reaching no compromise. But when you say humans have little or nothing to do with pollution, deforestation, oil spills etc which in turn exacerbates ecosystem hiccups, you are using a defense mechanism to justify business as usual rather than participating in real intellectual dialogue.

For example, America will not be 50% forests again for decades and maybe not for centuries.

When was America 50% forests? Link?

 

[skookerasbil]

I said I doubted our current methods of engaging the planet. Last time I checked that is doubt opposite of hubris. Hubris is to continuing normal conduct without consideration from outside yourself. I don't know what is up stream but thinking humanity has little to nothing to do with our future is just not realistic.

Why do you think I think trees never regenerate? Yet again you erect a strawman version so you can knock it out of the park. All your buddies are like "hell yeah, he is so smart and that liberal is so dumb."

The problem that I allueded to is that regeneration does not happen suddenly or instantly. It happens subtly and over decades. Once there is any significant imbalance, the region has many generations before it can be restored it its normal state. For example, America will not be 50% forests again for decades and maybe not for centuries.

Only when the land is unused, unmined and left fallow can the ecosystem restore itself as a rule of thumb. Of course food production can be increased by planting certain crops but no such technique is applicable to whole ecosystems or the globe.

The fact is we are consuming resources at never before seen rates. This means less and less regions are untouched. You clearly disagree that depletion of resources has anything to do with limits on production. Your answer is "keep the mills runnin' boys! We got plenty more elsewhere and when that runs out we'll go elsewhere and eventually return to our original spot!"

That's inaccurate because trends of resource extraction are increasing, not decreasing. What does this mean for those regions and real estate? Continued extraction and development prevents the necessary amount of time for an ecosystem to regenerate itself. We must take stock of not just how much America has leveled itself but how globally the same trends apply. I hope you can agree an ecosystem weakened by extraction and development cannot regenerate overnight. Each individual life form depends on the ecosystem remaining balanced. With continued depletion, what does this lead to?

It leads to the inability for the ecosystem to restore itself fully. Therefore many ecosystems will transform and adapt to new conditions since they cannot return to normal conditions. Indeed ecosystems are always changing (very slowly, not usually noticeable in a human life) and won't return to their normal state for potentially millennia once the global ecosystem is imbalanced. What was rainy once may become desert. That means bad news for food production. Famines are bad for poor people.

You seem to think none of this matters. That the world is so big we cannot possibly effect the planet. Fine, we disagree but your methods are mostly smear tactics using conservative talking points over and over to misconstrue my points rather than shutting your conservative motor off and just replying with genuine interest in the future of civilization. I'm not claiming you don't have an interest, it just seems your view makes agreement the most vile thing on the planet when its between a conservative and a non-conservative.

I can't claim anything without you disagreeing. It's very comical to watch the lengths you go to grasp at straws and debunk them. It is unbecoming of an intellectually honest, doubting person to misrepresent their claims intentionally, as I've demonstrated repeatedly.

The quote you posted bears little on my claim, which focused on decreased rainfall along with deforestation as the primary cause of the Mayan collapse. Whether I think it jumped 6 degrees is irrelevant. I was arguing the how the Mayans experienced a change in weather patterns which caused one of the most advanced civilizations to disperse and eventually lay in ruins. This story has relevance for us today: natural changes in climate along with human resource extraction brings about problems and famine. In other words, not living within our means can cause troubles down the road, as it has.

Why must you misconstrue so much? I've pointed out 10+ instances where you twist my words into dumb liberal stereotypes that I preemptively note are stupid so we don't get hung up over non-issues on which we agree already. Yet you continue to apply them as valid critiques to my posts. They are mere distractions from addressing what you know to be valid points, taken with a dose of skepticism of course. You're unwavering bigotry towards this "golden age" of human growth prevents any recognition that our actions may have consequences. Thus, our discussion bears no fruit. I doubt you would change your beliefs under any circumstance.

I'm trying to reach some basic consensus and you cannot nor will ever admit 1 single fault. I have continued to rework my beliefs since 15 when I began reading the Bible and have humbly noted my misgivings on this board when I'm wrong. The typical individual is a lot less like me, having formed their central beliefs by 19 they only do minor edits to peripheral views, almost never challenging their own core beliefs. I have undergone 4 major transformations from Christian and conservative to staunch agnostic and humanist to hedonist living on the streets with nothing but dumpster diving and needles with continual run-ins the the law. Now I espouse Taoism and it's path of inclusion. This is meant to show you I am very aware of how my beliefs can overpower any logic or evidence and once I realized I was on the wrong path it took time but I adjusted to what I believed to be the better path.

Don't come at me as if I am intellectually dishonest person who is more interested in shitting on you than healthy debate. It's clear where you stand. My pursuit of truth and better ways of living have strengthened my willingness to accept things I disagree with and adapt accordingly. You're view espouses loyalty, which has been an opposite of honesty--nodding to the royalty despite any internal hiccups.

If we engaged on an intellectually honest level, we wouldn't have spent the last 5 pages of discussion reaching no compromise. But when you say humans have little or nothing to do with pollution, deforestation, oil spills etc which in turn exacerbates ecosystem hiccups, you are using a defense mechanism to justify business as usual rather than participating in real intellectual dialogue.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD


These people who get romanticized with philosophy at a young age.......the moral superiority/self-righteousness is always at the level of epic. These people believe that if you talk something to death ( "intellectual dialogue") that you can change the world to the way they like it as if none of the history of societies has been instructive. It is most recognizable in the discussion of war with these people. This condition of thinking that there are solutions to every problem if we just can fix the broken institutions......but they never factor "costs" into their analysis of anything. Its fascinating really........


When I was 20 ( in college ), I was a full fledged Marxist.....thought I was wiser than everybody else......until I realized that good intentions were vastly different than results. Most people realize along the way that life is largely about choosing between "suck" vs "suckier"......that decisions that are made have necessary tradeoffs. But that is not the way a liberal thinks, thus, the bumper sticker, "LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER".


This guy explains it far better than I >>>


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88[/ame]



In terms of climate science, these people cannot comprehend that there is a necessary tradeoff for living in an industrialized society.....that's just the way it is. When the UN releases it estimate of the world going green at 76 trillion, the debate ends. But not to the liberal k00ks.



The "proof" in this thread speaks directly to reasoned thinking of the majority who DO understand necessary tradeoffs. ( link after link after link )



And lets not forget >>>>


Gallup poll: Conservatives outnumber liberals - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

 

[gnarlylove]

Todd, here is the link:
Deforestation

disclaimer: i don't agree or disagree with any conclusions found on that page except the bit about forests in America having dwindled by 90% of its original concentration. Of course they can grow back but that would mean we pick up and leave our suburbs and resource extraction so they are allowed to regenerate.

 

[gnarlylove]

kook, I never said I was morally superior or righteous. I've noted I know next to nothing about the world. Sorry you view this as supporting your stereotypes that liberals are egotistical madmen.

 

[skookerasbil]

more AGW k00k losing >>>

RealClearEnergy - Coal Will Be King by 2030

 

[flacaltenn]

Todd, here is the link:
Deforestation

disclaimer: i don't agree or disagree with any conclusions found on that page except the bit about forests in America having dwindled by 90% of its original concentration. Of course they can grow back but that would mean we pick up and leave our suburbs and resource extraction so they are allowed to regenerate.

You really dont know the definition of virgin forest do you? Larger question is --- WHO DID THIS TO YOU? Who took the money to educate you and left you so damaged? I can find 30 people today that will even the score and make certain they never teach again.. So tell me why you think more than 10% of the ORIGINALtrees That were here in 1600 should still be around?.. Should it be 25%? 100%? Should we drop everything and all serve the trees so that they live forever?

FORESTS HAVE NOT DWINDLED BY 90% IN AMERICA.. Give us the names of who stole your brain. AND probably robbed you and your parents for the theft.

 

[flacaltenn]

Skookers::: Do not attempt the Vulcan Mind Meld with that one. I need a day torecoup from the sadness. Gnarlyone is a crime scene.. If there IS an Alma Mater involved -- the first act of recovery should be lighting them up so we can Stop the overpriced leftist recruiting campaign disguised as college..

Youre right. A little Sowell, a required read of The Skeptical Eenvironmentalist and the intervention starts off OK. I think we have to recruit Bjorn Lomborg full time for the deprogrammeing camps, and slap warning stickers on anything written by an Ehrlicht...