Pavlov, Lemmings, BS, & Strawberries

then why would care about global warming, if you know nothing of the actual threat it represents? perhaps you are ill equipped to discuss a topic which by your own admission you have not given much thought.

 

I'm not an expert in all things that I care about or that concern me. I do feel like taking care of Earth is the right thing to do simply because of an ethereal connection I have to it. But it is common sense to see that if you poison something it will not respond well. I don't need studies to tell me that.

Anyway, I didn't say I hadn't given the topic much thought, simply the timeline of future catastrophe.

If it is your argument that human pollution isn't having any serious affect on Earth, I'd say you are wrong. Look at some areas in China.

 

Human pollutants entering the artmosphere have as much effect as you pissing into the Pacific. These GW fanatics could be much more effective by utilizing their time and money to find solutions to the pollution of our waterways, solid waste disposal, and coastal erosion.

 

your lack of knowledge indicates to me that your concern is fake.

of course. this is exactly what i have been saying. becaue of human nature, we can be sold on environmental mumbo jumbo because we have a silly connection with earth. your "ethereal connection" is a bunch of meaningless nonsense. frighteningly like a religious person saying they "just know" god exists.

earth is a big rock. you cannot "poison" it. it isnt alive. please try to understand that. you can merely re-arrange things on earth. earth is a lifeless rock. stop thinking of it as your human friend that you have to be nice to.

then what are you worried about? perhaps you give it some thought. yunno al gore says the future of human civilization is at risk. do you believe him?

agreed, the exploitation of the earth's resources in china have greatly increased the wealth and happiness of the folks in china, who have suffered greatly over the years, living fairly primitively and poorly.

side note: i just ate at popeyes and it stunnning to me how good it is. chicken sandwich with mashed potatoes. you cant beat that at any fast food place not called taco bell.

 

i am glad you are listening. given that there are competing issues, should we not be as efficient as possible with our resources, saving the most humans we can?

a dollar spent today on saving humans, should this dollar go to subsidizing a green car? or should it go to aids vaccine research? are these not the questions we should be asking ourselves? are we not trying to maximize human happiness and life? should we try to consider what is most important, how we can most effectively prevent misery?

my argument is of course that if we do want to prevent misery, and we have x amount of money to spend on it, then global warming is not our first priority.

 

Pollution of land and water affect the extremely minute portions of the earth that humans actually inhabit. We live on that land and we drink from that water. We also breath the air, but that is a vast infinite space that can absorb the relatively microscopic emissions that are carried to the skies above. The notion that they are somehow trapped and act as a barrier resulting in altering the effect of the sun on the planet is laughable. And no amount of egghead links will supercede my 60 years worth of common sense.