If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Climate change real according to Pentagon
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
0
Comments
I think the great irony will be that Bush will probably shit himself over this report, yet he wouldn't sign the Kyoto Protocol agreement.
read it today ...heavy shit.
even the scientists are begining to have a voice against bush once again ...maybe there is hope for democracy.
Wasn't it Exxon who bribed the White House in to telling people that global warming is a hoax a while back?
Something has to be done about the consumption of fossil fuels as we either have to look towards living a sustainable future or look in to populating other planets.
If everybody lived the same way as we do in the UK we'd need 3 more planets to populate us. All we do is waste waste waste. Why not recycle?
What's the deal with GM crops? It'll only lead to the use of pesticides that destroy the environment around them and the risk of cross pollination. Ohh yeah, they'll benefit the third world... now wasn't that the intention all along? :rolleyes:
We need wind power, wave power, we need geothermal and solar plates. We need to respect the earth that we belong to because she ain't gonna last forever.
It was alleged that they did, don't think it was ever proven.
I think there is a lot that local councils should be doing about this. Green bins and the suchlike.
The 'Earth' isn't a lifeform! How can rock perceive harm?!!!
As humans are the only known species capable of conceiving abstract concepts, then that PERMITS us to use the Earth!! Morality is subjective; 'harming' the Earth is an AMORAL ACT!!
The case was unproven.
Something has to be done about the consumption of fossil fuels as we either have to look towards living a sustainable future or look in to populating other planets.[/b][/quote]
Because they are a finite resource that is undoubtedly true, though global warming is an entirely separate issue.
Recycling is becoming in vogue now- our council comes round every fortnight and takes all our glass, tin and paper from us. Not much else can be recycles at the moment- many plastics cannot be recycled.
Interesting that you should say something that is so incorrect. The deal with genetically-modified crops is that they don't NEED the pesticide, because they have been genetically engineered to be immune to the pests that bring about the need for pesticide. They could also be engineered to withstand more arid climates, or very dry climates, which would obviously benefit Africa. In theory I am not against GM crops, what disturbs me is that the GM companies are devloping so-called "terminator" crops- i.e. the crops cannot reproduce, which means the farmers have to purchase new crops every year.
Or, indeed, we need chip fat, which is something that some cars can be run on now. Wind and wave power are not economically efficient or viable, the downsides of wind power especially vastly outweigh the benefits- if you don't believe me, I'll put one of those God-awful turbines in YOUR back garden.
As for the global warming question, here's one for the experts:
In dinosaur times, the earth was hot and swampy. A meteor hit the earth, and subsequently we had two Ice Ages. Now maybe I'm being dim, but maybe global warming has nothing to do with us and is just a natural occurrence- the records don't go back enough to prove or disprove this. A significant minority of scientists won't rule out natural warming, because there is no disproof of it, just as there is no proof of global warming. The records simply don't go back far enough.
Too many exclamation marks.
Doesn't make sense to shit in our own house though does it? You're logic is fucked.
I'm not talking about right away, but if the weeds adapt to grow stronger. Survival of the genes so to speak. And besides, there's weed killer and then there's protection from insects and vermine. Two completely different matters.
I'm pro-organic.
They could but is there any evidence to say that there is actually progress being made in this area?
Ok... we're talking about sustainability... not what looks pretty. People are ploughing down the countryside all the time to build motorways or new houses and nobody complains... yet some people get all huffy over wind turbines???
And there is a power company not far from me called Juice that takes its energy from turbines. It is more efficient in the long run.
Ever read Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis? Come back when you do because it makes a lot of sense. Logically the idea is sound and I'm not talking about pantheism when I say that everything is alive, it's a theory.
'Abstract concepts'? Such as... what?
The only arguement I can see for humans being 'above' the animal kingdom is the fact that our brains contain more grey matter and also that it hasn't (I don't think) been found that animals have aesthetical needs.
Doesn't that contradict itself?
tree rings can take us back 1500 yrs ...geology can take us back as far as we wish to go ...loaded with readable data.
i'm old enough to remember 'the green revolution' ...in the sixties we discovered that we could grow 8 times more per acre than ever dreamt of! the third world would be the biggest winners ...we could now feed the world ...hunger and starvation would be a thing of the past ...oh the headlines of those times ...
in reality what happened?
well, we realy could grow more than ever imaginable ...we built mountains out of butter and beef ...lakes made of wine ...an abundance and excess like never before seen in history!
the third world looked on with swollen bellies and deeply hungry eyes while we ...set fire to the butter mountains ...ditched millions upon millions of tons of healthy produce in the oceans ...
...drank the wine whilst shifting uncomfortably in our very comfortable lives each time we saw the desperate eyes of another hungry child dying live on tv ...
DON'T ...bring up the third world argument to back GM ...pleeease.
Exactly. IT's not about helping the third world, not in the least. It's not about conservation, about compassion... it's all about money, as per usual.
Perhaps... well just maybe the 'anti Christ' is something more absract than a 'him/her'. Just an idea...
Or Christ's aunty?
I mean that pehaps the Bible, or elements of it contained metaphors that could simply be personifications of something. I mean it's seen in Homer and other bardic poetry.
Maybe the anti-christ is greed, or global domination, or capitalism? It has to be an element of human nature because (in my opinion at least) the Bible is all about setting standards and repressing yourself.
Humans are THE ONLY KNOWN SPECIES to think in the abstract!! That's why we're called HOMO SAPIENS!! NO other species has complex language or culture!!!
Actually I always thought that the name "homo sapien" was translated to 'the thinker'... and that doesn't have to mean abstract thought. And then we could debate on what exactly 'abstract thought' is. You mean feelings like love? Or the ability to create art?
Stop using so many bloody exclamation marks.
Have you posted here under a different name btw? You're style seems familiar...
But then it's not alive, it's only a rock :rolleyes:
How can you be sure that they were the dreams of other prisoners?
However, some paranormal experts believe that ghosts are simply imprints of previous events that have happened in a certain area. Maybe the same counts for dreams.
This showed that modern humans are the ONLY species in the context of human evolution to think BEYOND concrete existence!!!!!
This new age bullshit that we must care for the environment is nonsense!!!! Most new agers don't even WANT to contribute to their society any how!!!!!
Really? Where did you get that information from?
However, the difference between homo sapiens and neanderthals at the time were the homo sapien's ability to be far more creative and adaptable.
What does 'early modern' mean anyway?
Modern? What are you on?
Did you even go to that link? That's a SCIENTIST, as in somebody who's qualified and a hypothesis created by somebody who's done their research. Hence which is why Lovelock is so respected. :rolleyes:
As for New Age, why don't you back up your opinion on the New Age movements with links, or maybe even a definition that proves that you know what the new age is.
Sorry... but I don't know what the hell you're going on about or how you've got on to the topic of new Religious Movements apart from maybe to take a stab at people who respect the environment and care about sustainability.
And early modern means simply the earliest members of our species!!!!!!!
So then you're implying that the ancient Greeks lived in an inferior society?
And I'm still waiting for back up on what you said about New Agers.
i wrote a number of poems at the time about the things written on the walls ...can i find my old prison diaries ...when razor rick cuts his blossom down in fine prose on the wall and then you dream about it ...you know.
Loose and lacking in depth. There's no way in which we can measure the IQ of ancient civilisations or prove that we are any more or less intelligent than them.
'Modern' can mean post twentieth centruary, or a civilisation pre-dating Christianity compared to the length the human race has been around.
Have you posted here before? Under the name Steelgate perchance?
Which means?
If you bothered to do any research into them you'd find that they aren't- if the wind is too strong the turbines can't be used, or if the wind is too weak the turbines can't be used. The turbines cannot store energy, there is no spare capacity with turbines. Turbines CANNOT replace traditional forms of energy- they can complement traditional forms of energy, but not override them. And that is why they are not worth destroying beautiful countryside for.
I agree MR, but then they don't prove or disprove anything. As I've said already, the dinosaurs lived in hot, swampoy conditions- who is to say that that isn't the natural state of this planet?
Heh.
MODERN humans is an ACCEPTED anthropological term used to describe ALL homo sapiens!!!
The Ancient Greeks were the same species as us, ergo they are called modern humans!!!
Do you think you could stop shouting? If you are so emphatic about getting your point across, your words alone should be persuasive enough....
Have you not seen how heated it can get at PMQ's LadyJade?:p Surely if they are allowed to shout at eachother;)