highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
We clearcut the crap out of many forests, now we have stick forests rising instead....one reason our fires are bad now.
No, it's because environmental groups won't allow cutting for fire control, which effectively means they prefer to see the whole forest burn when fires start. In 2002, there was a fire in the Show Low, AZ area and another in Chedeski, AZ- eventually, they met and in total, consumed 640K acres of land. A lot of the land was scrub with grasses and Junipers, but those go up like a candle. If the pine forests had been cut in a way that would block the fire, it would have been less destructive and it's likely that 14 firefighters would still be alive.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
90 degrees on the 4th of July in Anchorage this year besting the previous record of 85 set in 1969. 4th of July record was 77 set in 1999. Just sayin...
And 40 years ago, they were saying we were headed toward another ice age.
 
Ponzio

Ponzio

Audioholic Samurai
youve always been very nice and given me a lot of good advice on this forum, and you turn on me because? thank you for that

more proof people on the left are scum, cowards.
Ain't you the charmer
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Spartan
90 degrees on the 4th of July in Anchorage this year besting the previous record of 85 set in 1969. 4th of July record was 77 set in 1999. Just sayin...
borderline meaningless, do you know how long meteorological records have been kept for Alaska ............
 
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Samurai
And as the story goes, we find ourselves on page 12 of this topic. Some foretold a significantly shorter life to it, and as much as it's nice to see they were wrong (meaning there were fewer „you're dumb / no you're dumb“ type of posts), I'm sad to see it got to page 12 after my post.

Sorry for this patting myself on my back.

I tried to show that we’re beyond all this; but is it CO2 or Methane; is it people or nature; is it me or you; is it China or US; how much of whose CO2 is really doing this; who wrote the reports; what scientists...

My post was mainly aimed at @herbu , I wanted to see if I’ll have any success in bypassing all the divisions.

So, @herbu , if you allow, here’s a thought experiment which will, if nothing, show why most of non-republicans think you republicans are not exactly thinking straight, as much as I enjoyed your ripping on democrats:

Imagine there’s like 20 of us in a room in a typical “Bond final scene”, there’s a “Volkswagen Beatle” pile of C4 in one corner, in comes Mr. Bond and goes to try and diffuse the explosive and this is where you come to the scene with all your “wise republican questions”:

Wait, wait, stop! Don’t touch the bomb. First I want to ask whose bomb is it?

Is that really C4?

Who says it’s C4?

But I found one scientist who says that if you leave it to explode it won’t reach me in this corner of the room.

Maybe the bomb is Chinese and not really Russian at all...

Maybe if we leave it to explode we’ll colonise other planets sooner...

If we leave it to explode people will have jobs cleaning the debris.

Who authorised you, Mr. Bond, to diffuse the bomb?

What if it’s actually TNT and not C4?

Who do you vote for, Mr. Bond?

If we let you diffuse it, will that somehow portray Mr. Clinton in some positive light? We can’t have that.



I guess by now you see what I’m aiming at. I tried to show through risk assessment that there’s no preferable course of action to redirecting all the civilisation's resources towards tackling this issue.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Democrat, and I have no wish in saving anyone. Saving a species that doesn’t seem to be able to part ways with a destructive, filthy, plaguing, numerous diseases inducing mode of production is not worth saving. Not even for love or Bach.

I had no particular incline towards the green (and don’t particularly care for the lot), so I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about proposed alternatives, but the best anyone managed to come up with is something along the lines of; if you pollute freely and with impunity, someone will find a way to turn ones waste into gold, for example making Adidas sport shoes from ocean plastic.

But even this “brightest” of them all is all but wise. The very plastic as a heap of material is the aftermath; it is the repercussion, a consequence, not a true origin of the problem. You can’t base production on pollution because that way you make pollution desirable and you end up needing it. You need plastic to get into the oceans and on its way do all the damage it does, poison, kill, devastate in order for you to get your “raw material”. It is really not a solution at all. You CAN’T recycle a defective mode of production. I already tried to explain this once; the production process is way too dirty in itself. If you paint a pretty face on it by the way of recycling you’ve merely attached it to life support.

For my closing argument, let me try and put it this way; everyone has to jump on the green train because that way you get to deny it for another day.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
And 40 years ago, they were saying we were headed toward another ice age.
Who exactly said that? Was it in a peer journal? Or, was that mentioned as a consequence of a nuclear exchange perhaps?
 
H

herbu

Audioholic Samurai
And as the story goes, we find ourselves on page 12 of this topic. Some foretold a significantly shorter life to it, and as much as it's nice to see they were wrong (meaning there were fewer „you're dumb / no you're dumb“ type of posts), I'm sad to see it got to page 12 after my post.

Sorry for this patting myself on my back.

I tried to show that we’re beyond all this; but is it CO2 or Methane; is it people or nature; is it me or you; is it China or US; how much of whose CO2 is really doing this; who wrote the reports; what scientists...

My post was mainly aimed at @herbu , I wanted to see if I’ll have any success in bypassing all the divisions.

So, @herbu , if you allow, here’s a thought experiment which will, if nothing, show why most of non-republicans think you republicans are not exactly thinking straight, as much as I enjoyed your ripping on democrats:

Imagine there’s like 20 of us in a room in a typical “Bond final scene”, there’s a “Volkswagen Beatle” pile of C4 in one corner, in comes Mr. Bond and goes to try and diffuse the explosive and this is where you come to the scene with all your “wise republican questions”:

Wait, wait, stop! Don’t touch the bomb. First I want to ask whose bomb is it?

Is that really C4?

Who says it’s C4?

But I found one scientist who says that if you leave it to explode it won’t reach me in this corner of the room.

Maybe the bomb is Chinese and not really Russian at all...

Maybe if we leave it to explode we’ll colonise other planets sooner...

If we leave it to explode people will have jobs cleaning the debris.

Who authorised you, Mr. Bond, to diffuse the bomb?

What if it’s actually TNT and not C4?

Who do you vote for, Mr. Bond?

If we let you diffuse it, will that somehow portray Mr. Clinton in some positive light? We can’t have that.



I guess by now you see what I’m aiming at. I tried to show through risk assessment that there’s no preferable course of action to redirecting all the civilisation's resources towards tackling this issue.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Democrat, and I have no wish in saving anyone. Saving a species that doesn’t seem to be able to part ways with a destructive, filthy, plaguing, numerous diseases inducing mode of production is not worth saving. Not even for love or Bach.

I had no particular incline towards the green (and don’t particularly care for the lot), so I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about proposed alternatives, but the best anyone managed to come up with is something along the lines of; if you pollute freely and with impunity, someone will find a way to turn ones waste into gold, for example making Adidas sport shoes from ocean plastic.

But even this “brightest” of them all is all but wise. The very plastic as a heap of material is the aftermath; it is the repercussion, a consequence, not a true origin of the problem. You can’t base production on pollution because that way you make pollution desirable and you end up needing it. You need plastic to get into the oceans and on its way do all the damage it does, poison, kill, devastate in order for you to get your “raw material”. It is really not a solution at all. You CAN’T recycle a defective mode of production. I already tried to explain this once; the production process is way too dirty in itself. If you paint a pretty face on it by the way of recycling you’ve merely attached it to life support.

For my closing argument, let me try and put it this way; everyone has to jump on the green train because that way you get to deny it for another day.
My company CEO used to liken business to driving down a road in the fog, occasionally bouncing off the guardrails, but continuously progressing down the road. It is better than stopping and waiting for the fog to lift. I think it is your point. However, bouncing off the guardrail did not include gutting the company resources. It was still a business, there to make money. That is my point. Some of the proposed actions from the left would set us back 100 years. I simply want to know for a proposed action, how much will it cost and how much will it benefit. You think that is too much to ask?

Of course, James Bond could simply cut the red wire, having no idea what it does or what affect cutting it will have. We didn't need all those "sequels" anyway, right?
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
NASA's perspective below. I was in high school at the time and remember the discussion.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php
Yes, nice discussion.
But other scientists forecasted global warming.
If that ice age 100k year cycle is accurate, the planet was just coming out of one around 10k+ plus years ago. Where was the last heating cycle?
Yes, they were trying to get their head around but certainly not presenting peer papers on it.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
NASA's perspective below. I was in high school at the time and remember the discussion.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php
Neat article!



This map shows the difference in surface temperature in 2006 compared to the average from 1951 to 1980. Most of the globe is anomalously warm, with the greatest temperature increases in the Arctic Ocean, Antarctic Peninsula, and central Asia. NASA’s effort to track temperature changes will help societies evaluate the consequences of global climate change. (Map based on data from NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis.
I wonder why it shows such an extreme increase in the northern hemisphere while there is much less in the southern hemisphere, or maybe it would flip flop for 2007? Too bad we don't have an expert here to ask. I'm sure the data is available, but I don't have time to track it down now.
 
Last edited:
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
100 years from now history will record todays "left" as the most retarded, stupid, immature, moronic group of people ever lived.

is there any bandwagon these weak people wont jump on?
they believe anything cnn, msn, etc. tell them.
most of the media is owned by the left, and they complain about lonely fox lol

those fools have no soul
You're assuming the dumbass right wing propaganda machine survives....possible, but what a bleak future that would be.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top