[enfoires]

I have that kind of courage. I often do nothing.

[Boveosteors]

Same old BS only this time wrapped up as paid "scientific" papers paid for and promoted by polluters.

[anconueys]

As long as "do nothing" means rejecting consumerism then I'm all for it .

[Amfdaaandhaq]

Until I moused over the link I thought it would be an Onion article.

[SasortFkire]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Wouldn't that mean no more video games? no more civing? Doing less is a baby step towards doing nothing.

Someone who entertains themself with just a computer, is doing a lot less than someone who has a computer, plasma TV, stereo system, SUV and Boat for entertainment (or if you please, distraction from problems).

So contribute less to global warming .

And strive to contribute nothing .
(even if you can't quite get there)

[neeclindy]

damn, I was kinda hoping we could make the world warmer

[Roorseprate]

You've been getting lax allowing younger and more agile usurpers to. . .um. . .usurp your place.

[johnlohanmclee]

No

[nobodyhere]

Originally posted by DaShi
No To bloody right...

[mikapoq]

Jesus Joseph and Ron Jeremy in a ball.....

I am getting really angry over the global warming issue latley.

No, nothing about the impending destruction of our planet, that just makes me unhappy.

What is making me actually angry is the vast amount of lies surrounding it.

1. People with an immediate interest inclaiming there is no global warming, lying.

2. Other people who toe the line of the group above.

There was recently an article which is being widely circulated, something like "600 things global warming is blamed for", it links to a site which lists a huge number of things global warming is blamed for, the jist of it being, its impossible.

I read the first 30... all of them were completely plausible, well 25 of them were, 3 I did not understand the science behind and 2 were news articles by some small local newspaper.

What pisses me off is that the media pretends that the science of climate change is being discussed in the open, when in reality it is not. Media Establishment A "votes" for the opinion it wants, Media Company B votes another way, C, another way. None of the actually discuss the science at all, the closest they ever come is saying "A scientist said this" or "X many scientists said this, Y say this".

The issue is discussed so falsely, so disingenuously and with so many lies and manipulations while completely avoiding the actual science.

I realized every time this discussion came up in casual conversation(in real life), those saying they don’t believe in it, did not know the science behind it, at all, they just “felt” it was not real because they trusted the media sources saying it was not real, or that it was a liberal scam etc.

For the last year and a half, when I encounter these folks, I tell them the science behind it is really pretty simple and tell them if they will give me 5 minutes, i'll explain the scientific evidence and they can decide for themselves. It usually takes less then 5 minutes to give the jist of the idea. The science here is not complex but it is totaly ignored in the media.

/me smashes head into wall

It is almost enough to make me not mind that we’ll see serious climate problems in our lifetime.

[GitaraMoya]

Rejecting consumerism means making a conscious effort to reduce your consumption of rescources and lessening your total pollution output.

If you are aware of all the crap you buy and make an effort to be less wasteful, you can reduce your trash, a lot.

If you have an energy efficient home, you'll need less power to heat it, saving energy.

Buy energy efficient appliances.

Buy a car with good gas milage, don't even need a hybrid, though it helps.

You don't have to go live in a commune.

Recycling, not buying wasteful products, reusing what you own and voting for politicians who suppor enviromental causes, while also supporting enviromental causes yourself, is better then nothing.

If you really want to go extreme, buy a solar panel for your house, in much of the continental U.S., it can provide a hefty chunk of your power.

Encourage others to do the above activies.

[Jeffery]

How so?

[astefecyAvevy]

Oh, right.

To threadjack:

If the American people were all more willing to make some fairly minimal changes to their lifestyle, it would make a huge difference.

If the first world was willing to make an effort to live a little more harmoniously with nature, there would not be a enviromental crisis right now.

Sadly, people are short sighted and greedy.

[Trikaduliana]

Consumerism is basically the belief:

"The more I consume, the happier I am"

Rejecting consumering means rejecting that notion, that "The more I consume, the happier I am"

You can substitute spend for consume, they are much the same.

So the action of rejecting consumerism, really means, getting rid of stuff or not getting more stuff, and being happier for it.

For example, stop accumulating/consuming so much junk, with the money you no longer need, work fewer hours. Spend more time enjoying what you have, spend more time doing what you want to rather than what you have to to earn money, spend more time with your family and friends.

[investor]

On the same day Al Gore received his share of the Nobel Prize for his work on climate change — one of his main arguments is being challenged by a scientific fact.

Gore has said that the northern polar ice cap could be completely gone in as little as seven years. But Brazil's MetSul Weather Center reports the ice and snow cover in the Arctic have recovered to within one percent of normal — even though the official start of winter is still more than a week away.

And it says the southern polar ice cap actually has an additional 772,000 square miles of ice now — compared to a year ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316377,00.html

[draigenia]

Originally posted by Berzerker
On the same day Al Gore received his share of the Nobel Prize for his work on climate change — one of his main arguments is being challenged by a scientific fact.

Gore has said that the northern polar ice cap could be completely gone in as little as seven years. But Brazil's MetSul Weather Center reports the ice and snow cover in the Arctic have recovered to within one percent of normal — even though the official start of winter is still more than a week away.

And it says the southern polar ice cap actually has an additional 772,000 square miles of ice now — compared to a year ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316377,00.html A says the sky is blue for X, Y and Z reasons, which have no relation to each out.

It turns out Z is not true.

Then, the media makes a gap and says “Well if Z is true, X and Y must not be true either!”

Someone needs to write a book on the sorts of deceptive practices the media engages in, in regards to global warming.

Even if one thing Al Gore said is not true, that does not mean other things he said is not true, it CERTAINLY does not mean other things, other people said, are untrue.

The media treats our climate crisis like it is a credibility issue. It is not. It is not about who said what, but the science, which is ignored.


Give me a minute to read the article, i'll respond to see if it is factual or not.

[AttableBewNaw]

A warmer world has more life... Carbon increases and carbon is trapped more by the life flourishing under a warmer climate. What a beautiful theory. There's only one problem. There's a cancerous plague of mammels on earth which kills off forest and such a lot quicker than it can grow.

[loikrso]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I don't know about the media that Vesayen sees, but the one in my country predominantly presents the viewpoint that humans are responsible for global warming, and the alternative viewpoint is considered a heresy. I guess Vesayen lives in the States. Things might be different there.

[highattainlet]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ernationalnews If teh Guardian says so.

[Pwy9egVW]

Originally posted by Berzerker
A warmer world has more life... Carbon increases and carbon is trapped more by the life flourishing under a warmer climate. Studying climate is one thing, clamping down on production etc aint gonna do anything unless we're willing to go to war to stop the 3rd world from industrializing. Better to just develop better technologies so the 3rd world doesn't have to make our mistakes. I agree

(1) Most of the evidence is pointing out to the direction that global warming will increase, not decrease, the overall habitability of our planet.

(2) The only thing what voluntarily decreased production or penalties for increased carbon dioxide emissions for western countries will do is increase production and cheapen the use (we've seen this on coal already, less demand = relatively cheaper price) of fossil fuels for third world countries.

Thus, with the options of going to Kyoto or doing nothing, doing nothing is a vastly better alternative.