At least Bush loves the enviornment....

[Jingus 0]

Humans can't destroy the environment.

 

Seriously.

 

Short of worldwide nuclear armageddon, there's nothing that humanity can physically do that has a permanent effect on the worldwide ecosystem. A bunch of factories can fuck up the air quality of a geographical region for a few years, sure. Slash-n-burn clearcutting of the rain forest makes an infintesimal difference in the ratios of 02/CO2 in our atmosphere. But the cold truth is that a single major volcanic eruption releases more air pollution than all the pollutants mankind has manufactured combined.

 

For a great destruction of the Global Warming theory, read Michael Crichton's new book State of Fear, in which he slowly & painstakingly refutes all the "evidence" for environmental disasters one by one.

[SuperJerk 0]

Humans can't destroy the environment.

 

Seriously.

 

Short of worldwide nuclear armageddon, there's nothing that humanity can physically do that has a permanent effect on the worldwide ecosystem.

Since worldwide nuclear armageddon is within human ability, then your first claim is invalidated. Which I'm sure you already knew, since you included it.

 

A bunch of factories can fuck up the air quality of a geographical region for a few years, sure.

 

That seems to indicate that we can do enough damage to the environment to seriously damage the health of humans and animals within a given area (or farther if wind currents take the pollutants to other areas).

 

While it is true that volcanoes release enourmous amounts of pollution, they can not be blamed for many of the health problems people acquire because of certain types of pollution.

 

I think one of the ways that the environmental movement has failed is that it has emphasized long-term theoretical catestrophic effects of pollution, instead of the everyday health risks that common man-made sources of pollution pose.

 

In short, while the long term effects of pollution to the Earth's overall ecosystem is debatable, immediate health risks from exposure to man made pollutants is not. The government must enforce pollution regulations as part of its duty to protect the public.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

We could use the world's entire nuclear arsenal and detonate them in the atmosphere (which is worse than a regular strike where the earth absorbs a lot of the impact) and it wouldn't destroy all life. But it would kill millions of people, and I think we should avoid that, don't you?

 

We don't make that much of an impact on global warming at all, but we can change the environment at a local level. Bulldozing a forest to build a solar power plant would create a giant hotplate that would drastically affect localized weather patterns. It isn't what we are doing in the atmosphere that is our biggest contribution to warming, it is what we are building on the ground. Concrete absorbs more heat than grass. It is not a coincidence that the average temperatures in cities have skyrocketed in the past century while rural areas haven't experienced nearly as drastic an increase.

 

Smog is another major health concern. Environmentalists are fighting for a worthy cause, but they are too focused on the doomsday scenarios to seem to want to fix the very real problems that the environment is facing. The biggest threat to our way of life is not the United States, it is those bastards in Brazil & Malaysia slashing and burning any bit of rainforest that they can find.

[SuperJerk 0]

We could use the world's entire nuclear arsenal and detonate them in the atmosphere (which is worse than a regular strike where the earth absorbs a lot of the impact) and it wouldn't destroy all life.

 

Fucking cockroaches.

[EricMM 0]

And my point is, these scientists aren't arguing about doomsday theories, they're arguing about effect on local areas by certain practices.

 

And Bush is telling them not to.

 

But here's a hint: If we fuck up local ecosystems everywhere that we like to live, what the fuck do we have left?

[Guest MikeSC]

And my point is, these scientists aren't arguing about doomsday theories, they're arguing about effect on local areas by certain practices.

 

And Bush is telling them not to.

 

But here's a hint: If we fuck up local ecosystems everywhere that we like to live, what the fuck do we have left?

And you assume Bush just wants to fuck up the ecosystem.

 

As if he has a spare oxygen source to breathe.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

No.

 

I assume he doesn't place as much value on the environment as he does on interest groups and material resources.

 

I am not saying that man shouldn't affect his environment, but there is a maximum.

 

And you think there's no effect on the environment? That it's not long lived? Check out the motherfucking Chesapeake Bay.

[Guest MikeSC]

No.

 

I assume he doesn't place as much value on the environment as he does on interest groups and material resources.

 

I am not saying that man shouldn't affect his environment, but there is a maximum.

 

And you think there's no effect on the environment? That it's not long lived? Check out the motherfucking Chesapeake Bay.

And we have a startling ability to fix it.

-=Mike

[Guest Nobody]

heh even if the we had (or have, whatever) a president that cared about the environment. It certainly won't stop the human race population from exploding and the enormous amount of natural resources that we squander each and every day. But it's not a real concern of mine. Even if we found a way to totally stop our decadence something else would become a worse problem.

 

It's really pointless to argue over who runs whatever country. The only thing that any of us have any real control over is ourselves and what we do before we die. My only goal is to die happy.

[SuperJerk 0]

My only goal is to die happy.

And that's why you're a Nobody.

[EricMM 0]

Read up on the Bay, Mike, before you clamor about our "startling" ability to do anything about our pollution.

 

Ecological damage takes a "startling" amount of money and manpower to fix, if it can be fixed at all. A lot of it CANNOT in fact be properly treated by us, relying merely on natures slow recuperation.

 

Here's a hint, there are thousands of jobs in the Bay, and Millions and Millions if not Billions of dollars invested in it's resources, both food wise and recreational. But those resources are dwindling, almost gone. All because some fucking farms and sewage plants don't want to heed damage to local ecosystems when dealing with waste (points to initial article above)

[SuperJerk 0]

My only goal is to die happy.

And that's why you're a Nobody.

That witty comeback made no sense. Aw, well.

[Guest MikeSC]

Read up on the Bay, Mike, before you clamor about our "startling" ability to do anything about our pollution.

 

Ecological damage takes a "startling" amount of money and manpower to fix, if it can be fixed at all. A lot of it CANNOT in fact be properly treated by us, relying merely on natures slow recuperation.

 

Here's a hint, there are thousands of jobs in the Bay, and Millions and Millions if not Billions of dollars invested in it's resources, both food wise and recreational. But those resources are dwindling, almost gone. All because some fucking farms and sewage plants don't want to heed damage to local ecosystems when dealing with waste (points to initial article above)

It takes a special level of arrogance to believe that we are anything but a gnat to this planet.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Read up on the Bay, Mike, before you clamor about our "startling" ability to do anything about our pollution.

 

Ecological damage takes a "startling" amount of money and manpower to fix, if it can be fixed at all.  A lot of it CANNOT in fact be properly treated by us, relying merely on natures slow recuperation.

 

Here's a hint, there are thousands of jobs in the Bay, and Millions and Millions if not Billions of dollars invested in it's resources, both food wise and recreational.  But those resources are dwindling, almost gone.  All because some fucking farms and sewage plants don't want to heed damage to local ecosystems when dealing with waste (points to initial article above)

It takes a special level of arrogance to believe that we are anything but a gnat to this planet.

-=Mike

A gnat packing nukes.

[EricMM 0]

I takes a special level of ignorance to believe that we can only pose a gnats level of threat to ourselves and our own.

 

Which you will never seem to grasp.

[Guest MikeSC]

I takes a special level of ignorance to believe that we can only pose a gnats level of threat to ourselves and our own.

 

Which you will never seem to grasp.

We are NOTHING to this planet.

 

Nothing.

 

Volcanoes spew more pollutants in one eruption than we have --- in our history --- combined.

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

The only thing that mankind can do to the earth that mother nature doesn't do on a regular basis would be (like I said) a massive dose of radiation from worldwide nuclear holocaust... and even the effects from THAT would wear off faster than those from a big meteor strike. Humanity is a danger to nothing but itself. The planet and the environment will still be chugging along for eons after we're all gone.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Check out the motherfucking Chesapeake Bay.

Say this in the voice of a gangta rapper for added amusement.

[Guest MikeSC]

Check out the motherfucking Chesapeake Bay.

Say this in the voice of a gangta rapper for added amusement.

Chesapeake in DA HIZZOUSE!!!

-=Mike

...Holla!

[Guest Failed Mascot]

I takes a special level of ignorance to believe that we can only pose a gnats level of threat to ourselves and our own.

 

Which you will never seem to grasp.

We are NOTHING to this planet.

 

Nothing.

 

Volcanoes spew more pollutants in one eruption than we have --- in our history --- combined.

-=Mike

I think the planet would be in better shape without human beings. I mean its not like styrofoam grows on trees and stuff.

 

What do I know though? I'm sure massive factories filling the air with smog and gasses does wonders for the enviroment.

[Guest MikeSC]

I takes a special level of ignorance to believe that we can only pose a gnats level of threat to ourselves and our own.

 

Which you will never seem to grasp.

We are NOTHING to this planet.

 

Nothing.

 

Volcanoes spew more pollutants in one eruption than we have --- in our history --- combined.

-=Mike

I think the planet would be in better shape without human beings. I mean its not like styrofoam grows on trees and stuff.

 

What do I know though? I'm sure massive factories filling the air with smog and gasses does wonders for the enviroment.

I think I'll stick to people with ACTUAL intellect for opinions.

 

But thanks for playing.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

And you think there's no effect on the environment? That it's not long lived? Check out the motherfucking Chesapeake Bay.

Please, more damage has been done to the ecosystem of the Chesapeake by those goddamn snakehead fish.

[EricMM 0]

1) I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly Vyce. Just because the media has made a larger deal over it than anything else means exactly diddly shit.

 

2) Mike, you seem to refuse to acknowledge my point. The planet will always endure, this is irrefutable. But we fully have it in ourselves to ruin our own environment for ourselves. We've done it before, and we do it now, and we'll keep doing it, until we learn not to. And it's your mentality that partially fuels it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Good book on this topic.

[NoCalMike 0]

I think people are missing the point that Eric and the article I posted are trying to make. This isn't about "OMG THE WORLD IS DYING BECAUSE OF SMOG" This is about local regions, and how waste pollution is hurting small ecosystems. I am not arguing that we are killing the world, but corporations refuse to follow enviornmental laws that directly lead to killing off life in Chesapeake Bay surely leads to a worse time for humans. There is absolutely no argument to be made that exess waste being dumped into the bay, doesn't effect anything, or is A-ok for the fish and other aquatic life in the region. Whether Pollution, Excess garbage, waste, carbon dioxide etc....are going to destroy "Earth" is very much besides the point. The Point IS that all that stuff undoubtingly hurts PEOPLE. If the air in my city is bad, it might not destroy the earth, but it is still bad for the people in this city to be breathing, and can lead to accelerated rates of cancer and other disease. I fully agree that the enviornmentalist movement is focusing too much on the "doomsday" end of the world scenarios, and less time on local and regional problems/solutions to local enviornmental issues.

[SuperJerk 0]

I takes a special level of ignorance to believe that we can only pose a gnats level of threat to ourselves and our own.

 

Which you will never seem to grasp.

We are NOTHING to this planet.

 

Nothing.

 

Volcanoes spew more pollutants in one eruption than we have --- in our history --- combined.

-=Mike

It has been proven that humans can put enough toxins into the environment to create serious health risks for ourselves.

 

Volcanoes didn't create the smog over Los Angeles, the raditiation in the American southwest, or the sewage in the Missouri River. Humans did.

 

Do humans have the power to destroy the ecosystem forever? Perhaps not.

 

Do humans have the power to poison the environment so that people's health is seriously at risk? Absolutely.

[NoCalMike 0]

I takes a special level of ignorance to believe that we can only pose a gnats level of threat to ourselves and our own.

 

Which you will never seem to grasp.

We are NOTHING to this planet.

 

Nothing.

 

Volcanoes spew more pollutants in one eruption than we have --- in our history --- combined.

-=Mike

It has been proven that humans can put enough toxins into the environment to create serious health risks for ourselves.

 

Volcanoes didn't create the smog over Los Angeles, the raditiation in the American southwest, or the sewage in the Missouri River. Humans did.

 

Do humans have the power to destroy the ecosystem forever? Perhaps not.

 

Do humans have the power to poison the environment so that people's health is seriously at risk? Absolutely.

Well At least someone gets it!!!

 

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I takes a special level of ignorance to believe that we can only pose a gnats level of threat to ourselves and our own.

 

Which you will never seem to grasp.

We are NOTHING to this planet.

 

Nothing.

 

Volcanoes spew more pollutants in one eruption than we have --- in our history --- combined.

-=Mike

It has been proven that humans can put enough toxins into the environment to create serious health risks for ourselves.

 

Volcanoes didn't create the smog over Los Angeles, the raditiation in the American southwest, or the sewage in the Missouri River. Humans did.

 

Do humans have the power to destroy the ecosystem forever? Perhaps not.

 

Do humans have the power to poison the environment so that people's health is seriously at risk? Absolutely.

Well At least someone gets it!!!

 

Hey, I've been saying that all along.

 

We also have the power to clean most (not all) of it up, if we actually got up and decided to do something about it. Lake Erie is in much better shape than it used to be.

[Guest CronoT]

I takes a special level of ignorance to believe that we can only pose a gnats level of threat to ourselves and our own.

 

Which you will never seem to grasp.

We are NOTHING to this planet.

 

Nothing.

 

Volcanoes spew more pollutants in one eruption than we have --- in our history --- combined.

-=Mike

It has been proven that humans can put enough toxins into the environment to create serious health risks for ourselves.

 

Volcanoes didn't create the smog over Los Angeles, the raditiation in the American southwest, or the sewage in the Missouri River. Humans did.

 

Do humans have the power to destroy the ecosystem forever? Perhaps not.

 

Do humans have the power to poison the environment so that people's health is seriously at risk? Absolutely.

Well At least someone gets it!!!

 

MikeSC won't get it unless and/or until you shove his head into a sewage drainage pipe.

 

Hey MikeSC, go watch this movie, which is based on a true story, and then try to tell me we don't affect the evironment. Of course, knowing you, you'd blame the people who died for living there.

 

A Civil Action

[Guest MikeSC]

No, I'd say it was a pretty shitty movie based on a less-than-stellar book.

-=Mike