03-09-2014 04:01 PM
175 ... 4567
tools
  1. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Fine...I will ask you the same question; how few people is enough? How low does our population need to be to be permanently self sustaining?

    See? I can ask open ended questions too.


    It is subjective. Not everyone agrees. We could reduce industrialization to zero and remove the health consequences entirely...would you support doing that? If not, why?




    So you are saying we should shift all resources currently devoted to stopping pollution and instead use them to avoid asteroid impact?
    There you go with your extremes again. Nobody said "shift all resources"except you.

    Nobody ever said anything about reducing industrialization to zero either. Except you.

    How much damage to the environment would it take to convince you, exactly?

    How about damage to human health?

    What's an acceptable amount of environmental harm and impact on human health for you before something needs to be done about it?

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    UJ95x and GadgetGator like this.
    03-07-2014 09:46 AM
  2. JeffDenver's Avatar
    Exactly what position do I support? That we should do something about carbon emissions (and maybe other stuff)? Yes. Have I said what that should be? Nope. I haven't proposed a single idea, but yet here you are arguing against doing anything about it at all
    When did I say that? Quote please.

    "Wait and see" implies "let's do nothing"
    If you say so.

    It could also imply "lets do nothing drastic", don't you think?

    What would it take to convince you?
    More than what has been presented so far.

    I don't personally have a perception problem.
    Of course not...only people who don't agree with you have the perception problem. Here's an example:

    You seem to be in denial about the fact that humans are having a negative impact on the environment.
    You are entitled to an opinion. I do not agree that I am in denial.

    I think we're doing harm to the planet we live on and things could be done to prevent some of that.
    And I agree. I just may not agree on the scale.

    People seem to be quick to jump to one extreme or the other.
    But only other people, right?
    03-07-2014 09:48 AM
  3. JeffDenver's Avatar
    How much damage to the environment would it take to convince you, exactly?
    A level that has not occurred before.

    How about damage to human health?
    All industrialization damages human health...it's only a matter of degree.

    What's an acceptable amount of environmental harm and impact on human health for you before something needs to be done about it?
    More than what I have seen so far.
    03-07-2014 09:50 AM
  4. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    But only other people, right?
    Nope. I said we should do something. Which means more than nothing but less than everything. You keep throwing around drastic ideas and think people are suggesting going "all in" with things, which is simply not the case.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    03-07-2014 09:52 AM
  5. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    A level that has not occurred before.


    All industrialization damages human health...it's only a matter of degree.


    More than what I have seen so far.
    That's very vague. "A level that has not occurred before". Ok. Their are more humans on the planet now than there have ever been. That fact can't be disputed.

    Now I'll get hypothetical since I haven't done the research to support this. If we're polluting at a level that we never have before then that would qualify as "a level that has not occurred before". It's fairly obvious that since we started industrializing that we've been polluting at a level that has never occurred before, right?

    But that's not enough. So let's just scrap any sort of emission control that's already in place. We don't need it. Our impact has been next to nothing. That should help the economy by saving businesses money that's being spent unnecessarily on things that help reduce pollution.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    03-07-2014 09:59 AM
  6. dmmarck's Avatar
    Hey now, I get 20 mpg in my Mustang, does that count?
    03-07-2014 10:03 AM
  7. Farish's Avatar
    I believe that most of this "climate change " talk is motivated by money.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    On both sides and that is what has tainted it all.
    03-07-2014 10:06 AM
  8. pappy53's Avatar
    On both sides and that is what has tainted it all.
    And I believe that Obama is talking about it to deflect attention from the cluster called Obamacare at this time.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    03-07-2014 10:14 AM
  9. Farish's Avatar
    And I believe that Obama is talking about it to deflect attention from the cluster called Obamacare at this time.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    I rather save Obamacare for Obamacare threads not this one.
    msndrstood likes this.
    03-07-2014 10:37 AM
  10. pappy53's Avatar
    I rather save Obamacare for Obamacare threads not this one.
    That's cool. I'm not discussing Obamacare, just giving my opinion on his reason for stressing "climate change" now.
    03-07-2014 10:53 AM
  11. JeffDenver's Avatar
    That's very vague. "A level that has not occurred before".
    I don't think it is any less vague than asking "what level of human (pollution) activity is acceptable to you"? It goes both ways.

    Ok. Their are more humans on the planet now than there have ever been. That fact can't be disputed.
    This is not the first time that has happened. That has been true for thousands of years. Our global population has been increasing for a long time.
    03-07-2014 11:11 AM
  12. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I don't think it is any less vague than asking "what level of human (pollution) activity is acceptable to you"? It goes both ways.


    This is not the first time that has happened. That has been true for thousands of years. Our global population has been increasing for a long time.
    We haven't been industrialized for thousands of years, though. We're industrialized now and are polluting at "a level that has not occurred before", which just so happens to be when you would be convinced that it's a problem worth doing something about.

    I would go back and quote where you said that, but you know what you said without me needing to do that.

    Did you ever find where I said any sort of measures that I think should be done to help with "climate change"?
    03-07-2014 11:18 AM
  13. JeffDenver's Avatar
    We haven't been industrialized for thousands of years, though.
    At what specific point did it become too much?
    03-07-2014 11:36 AM
  14. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    At what specific point did it become too much?
    Now you're moving the goal post. You said "a level that has not occurred before".

    We're already there. Since we industrialized the level of pollution we're introducing to the environment is higher than it's ever been.

    This conversation isn't going to go anywhere if you continue to avoid the rest of what I say.
    msndrstood and GadgetGator like this.
    03-07-2014 11:41 AM
  15. dmmarck's Avatar
    At what specific point did it become too much?
    Probably when entire cities are blanketed in smog and pollution to such an extent that life ceases to exist without significant artificial aid.
    msndrstood likes this.
    03-07-2014 11:41 AM
  16. JeffDenver's Avatar
    Now you're moving the goal post. You said "a level that has not occurred before".
    That is my opinion. You asked for my opinion. Goalposts remain immobile.

    We're already there.
    In your opinion. I do not agree. There is no inconsistency.
    03-07-2014 12:54 PM
  17. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    That is my opinion. You asked for my opinion. Goalposts remain immobile.


    In your opinion. I do not agree. There is no inconsistency.
    So you don't accept that as we industrialized we created more pollution than we ever have before?
    03-07-2014 01:04 PM
  18. dmmarck's Avatar
    That is my opinion. You asked for my opinion. Goalposts remain immobile.


    In your opinion. I do not agree. There is no inconsistency.
    Man, I hope you never bother traveling to Shanghai.
    03-07-2014 01:10 PM
  19. Mooncatt's Avatar
    An interesting debate with Bill Nye. Basically his only real point was the population increase, but the other guy pointed out several flaws with the other points. No doubt pollution is bad for health reasons beyond global warming, but further evidence that man-made global warming, climate change, etc isn't quite the settled argument that proponents want us to believe and former pro- scientists are even starting to turn the other way.

    03-07-2014 01:13 PM
  20. palandri's Avatar
    Man, I hope you never bother traveling to Shanghai.
    You don't even have to go that far anymore. Have you seen Salt Lake City lately? Could this have been caused by man and unregulated industry?



    U.S. EPA to propose rules slashing unhealthy emissions from cars - The Denver Post
    dmmarck likes this.
    03-07-2014 03:35 PM
  21. dmmarck's Avatar
    You don't even have to go that far anymore. Have you seen Salt Lake City lately? Could this have been caused by man and unregulated industry?

    http://i58.tinypic.com/mwqhd2.jpg

    U.S. EPA to propose rules slashing unhealthy emissions from cars - The Denver Post
    Holy smokes.

    Here's a Google Images Search for Shanghai smog, for those interested in natural pollution that has existed in Shanghai since the beginning of time and which is completely unrelated to human beings creating any sort of negative environmental impact.
    palandri likes this.
    03-07-2014 03:38 PM
  22. Farish's Avatar
    Maybe Jeff thinks that haze in Denver has to do with the recent legalization of Marijuana.

    This just confirmed my dislike for Apple and their sheep-img_1254.jpg
    msndrstood likes this.
    03-07-2014 04:58 PM
  23. msndrstood's Avatar
    Maybe Jeff thinks that haze in Denver has to do with the recent legalization of Marijuana.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1254.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	33.6 KB 
ID:	107099
    At least it's happy smog, 😆

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    03-07-2014 05:07 PM
  24. JHBThree's Avatar
    Here are the epa instructions for cleaning up a broken bulb taken from their website. No, its not better for the environment.

    Before Cleanup
    Have people and pets leave the room.Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment. *Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one. Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb with paper or cardboard;sticky tape;damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); anda glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.
    During CleanupDO*NOT*VACUUM.* Vacuuming is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken.* Vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor.Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.* Scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard.* Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.*Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag.* See thedetailed cleanup instructions*for more information, and for differences in cleaning up hard surfaces versus carpeting or rugs.Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.
    After CleanupPromptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of.* Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.*Next, check with your local government about disposal requirements in your area, because some localities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center. If there is no such requirement in your area, you can dispose of the materials with your household trash.If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.

    If you have further questions, please call your local poison control center at 1-800-222-1222.


    Why is it important to clean up a broken CFL properly?

    CFLs and other fluorescent light bulbs contain a small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing. When a fluorescent bulb breaks in your home, some of this mercury is released as mercury vapor. To minimize exposure to mercury vapor, EPA recommends that residents follow the cleanup and disposal steps described on this page.



    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Despite the risks associated with them breaking, CFLs are more efficient (read: use less electricity provided by coal power plants) and last longer (read: less waste) than incandescent bulbs. They are better for the environment and more environmentally friendly.

    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    03-07-2014 10:50 PM
  25. JHBThree's Avatar
    Exactly.

    The people promoting drastic changes are assuming humans are the primary cause, when we do not really know that. They want us to take drastic actions based on information we are not certain of yet.
    Humans ARE the primary cause of changes in the environment. We know that for a fact. We do not know the extent to which we are having an effect however. You cannot deny that humans are having an effect, because that is just false on its face.

    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    03-07-2014 10:57 PM
175 ... 4567

Similar Threads

  1. Hello All.
    By Charles Ray1 in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-19-2014, 10:09 AM
  2. my wallpaper was distorted ?
    By preppystud in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2013)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 07:01 PM
  3. [APP][Free] Fitness App customizable for dieting and workout
    By 4Fitting in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 09:15 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD