Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Climate Change and Environmental Issues Far north feels worst effects of warming

Your odd little repetitions are amusing.

It's probably the cyber din getting to me, Stereoman. The sky is falling -- er -- the snow -- er the water is rising -- er -- the prehistoric dung is -- er -- the Mother of all Tsunamis is just a matter of time -- er -- the Oceans are dying -- er -- oh hell, now I'm depressed.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

apparently we will know soon enough

and in a decade or so when no real changes have happened and everything is fine and dandy, ill look back and say what an idiot I was.......

assuming ill have learned to live in the sea by that stage :-(

Actually, it is the world's rice crops that are pumping vast amounts of that hothouse superstar gas, methane, into the atmosphere, Schlack. We need to stop planting rice --- NOW!!!!!Yours,
Issodhos

So in the end you agree that global warming is happening, that it is a a problem, that the problem is caused by human activity... and that activity is (among other things) growing rice.... correct?

Hugs and Kisses
Ardy

Genius

plus it would wipe out millions of aisans through starvation further reducing CO emissions. cos you know its genocide and the stone age is what the environmentalists really want.

of course we could do something about the Cow Burps

kill all the cows.


unless the cows fight back

Ardy. Ardy. Ardy. I have never written that the planet may not be going through a warming period. I have been highly critical of Gaian-worshipping "End Time" claims and have questioned the claimed impact man has or could have on climate change. I have questioned the politicizing of the issue and America being made the primary target of the more vocal globalwarming whiners. I have been critical of the attempts to silence others by claiming that the "jury is in" and no more discussion is allowable. As to the rice .... well, I think that leaves the sanctimoneous, multi-culti spouting, Gaian worshipping, "other" oriented visionaries of doom in a bit of a cultural pickle -- growing rice is anti-Mother Earth, but anti-ricism is racist.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos
Oops! SOURCE:

Hey. A modest proposal, wot? But seriously, Schlack, words can hurt. Some environgelical Gaians prefer the word "depopulate" in place of "genocide" (much softer sounding, though somewhat clanky), or even better "sustainable population" (has that whole recycling, "giving back" aura to it, don't you think?)

Remember -- it is alright to do something as long as one has "good intentions" or especially if one's "heart was in the right place" and (best of all) if it was meant to alleviate a percieved 'social injustice'!! ;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

A single genuflection is adequate
Let's see, you have never written what the planet MAY not be going through. Astonishing self control, wot?

I have yet to see your reference the demonstrates the "end of time" claim you make. I on the other hand have started a thread to discuss the specific acknowledgement that climate change is not an end of world scenario link

Perhaps you have misunderstood. It is not a case of "jury is in", but rather a case that a clear scientific consensus has emerged. It is never the case that no more scientific discussion is allowable. I suppose one could find idiosyncratic situations where views on either side of this debate have been squelched. But a few such examples do not constitute proof of your thesis that "no more discussion is allowable." And as a matter of simple fact, I remain willing to discuss this subject at great length and have rather found that those holding opposing views seem to loose interest in the discussion just as I am warming (so to speak) to the topic.


In fact very many human activities can have bad effects when the system is cranked up to an exponential size. If we assume the human population of the earth to swell by a factor of 10,000, then even the act breathing might deplete atmospheric oxygen and increase co2... leaving aside the problems inherent in defecation.

Unfortunately I find myself unable to consider your full argument since the link you provides does not work for me.
But as far as I am aware, agriculture is a closed loop system. That is to say that as a crop is raised, it absorbs carbon. And as the plants decay, the carbon is released. There is minimal net change in available environmental carbon. This is distinctly different from burning fossil fuels where you are extracting carbon based fuels from the earth and releasing that carbon into the atmosphere with out any attempt to recycle that carbon back to it's original captive location.


Your point defies confutation and comprehension with with an effortless insouciance.

xoxox
Ardy

the key word here, Iss, is some

but i dont think youve posted a single link to any of them. surely if they were so prevelant....

now what do the majority or even some of the other environmentalists think?

are they interesting in new technologies, process and attitudes in the way we organise energy and food production? perhaps you might update your understanding of what environmentalists and stop listening to the shriekers.