Is it that global warming is a problem... [W:25]

[Grand Mal]

And we are the cause, or the problem is global cooling and we're the solution?

I once wrote a thing about 'Gaia theory'- Gaia theory being the perception that all life on the surface of the earth makes a living organism. I proposed that millenia ago the planet was much healthier, covered with lush life- huge plants and animals. All that organic activity drew millions of tons of carbon out of the atmosphere and the planet started to cool. Species died out, shorelines changed, at times thick sheets of ice covered huge areas.
Gaia's answer was to evolve a species intended to dig all that carbon out of the ground and return it to the atmosphere so the planet could warm up again. Gaia will slowly return to it's former vibrant, lush health. After we finish the job, our survival will be irrelevant; probably, it'll be better for Gaia if we die out.

So, who are we to bail out the work we're designed to do? Do we have a right to refuse to return all that carbon to the atmosphere?

 

[What if...?]

And we are the cause, or the problem is global cooling and we're the solution?

I once wrote a thing about 'Gaia theory'- Gaia theory being the perception that all life on the surface of the earth makes a living organism. I proposed that millenia ago the planet was much healthier, covered with lush life- huge plants and animals. All that organic activity drew millions of tons of carbon out of the atmosphere and the planet started to cool. Species died out, shorelines changed, at times thick sheets of ice covered huge areas.
Gaia's answer was to evolve a species intended to dig all that carbon out of the ground and return it to the atmosphere so the planet could warm up again. Gaia will slowly return to it's former vibrant, lush health. After we finish the job, our survival will be irrelevant; probably, it'll be better for Gaia if we die out.

So, who are we to bail out the work we're designed to do? Do we have a right to refuse to return all that carbon to the atmosphere?

Some believe Gaia made us to carry life out of the gravity well, like seed pods.

And that the carbon was stored to provide the necessary fuel.

Which we have decided to burn up in SUVs instead.

 

[Grand Mal]

Some believe Gaia made us to carry life out of the gravity well, like seed pods.

And that the carbon was stored to provide the necessary fuel.

Which we have decided to burn up in SUVs instead.

Nice take on it. I think maybe hydrogen is a more likely fuel for that purpose than carbon, but's certainly an elegant theory.

 

[Papa bull]

Some believe Gaia made us to carry life out of the gravity well, like seed pods.

And that the carbon was stored to provide the necessary fuel.

Which we have decided to burn up in SUVs instead.

Yeah. So what's the problem with that?

 

[What if...?]

Nice take on it. I think maybe hydrogen is a more likely fuel for that purpose than carbon, but's certainly an elegant theory.

Hydrogen is a "battery", not a fuel.

It has to be made, and that takes energy (fuel).

 

[What if...?]

Yeah. So what's the problem with that?

Burn up all the fossil hydrocarbons Gaia sequestered to fuel the spread of life oitside the bisphere and it won't be there for its "intended" purpose.

 

[Papa bull]

Burn up all the fossil hydrocarbons Gaia sequestered to fuel the spread of life oitside the bisphere and it won't be there for its "intended" purpose.

Yeah. So what's the problem with that?

 

[flogger]

Hydrogen is a "battery", not a fuel.

It has to be made, and that takes energy (fuel).

Ironically the process involved here gives off copiously large amounts of a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO 2 . Its called water vapour

I always wonder why the greenies are so keen on this very expensive alternative

 

[What if...?]

Yeah. So what's the problem with that?

We end up stranded on the planet and eventually drown in our own filth? Use up all the resources.

Become extinct, probably. All our eggs in one fragile basket.

 

[flogger]

We end up stranded on the planet and eventually drown in our own filth? Use up all the resources.

Become extinct, probably. All our eggs in one fragile basket.

Always the problem with the greenies is that for them the Earth is too precious and fragile for us to be allowed to continue existing on it with any worthwhile quality of life. They see us as a blight on the biosphere rather than a part of it and we must be forced to use only the most inefficient and expensive energy alternatives as our penance for comitting the original sin of industrialisation. Human progress and aspiration must always be impeded at every opportunity in an effort to halt this 'plague'

 

[Deuce]

Always the problem with the greenies is that for them the Earth is too precious and fragile for us to be allowed to continue existing on it with any worthwhile quality of life. They see us as a blight on the biosphere rather than a part of it and we must be forced to use only the most inefficient and expensive energy alternatives as our penance for comitting the original sin of industrialisation. Human progress and aspiration must always be impeded at every opportunity in an effort to halt this 'plague'

And flogger wants to murder babies by putting lead in their drinking water.

 

[flogger]

And flogger wants to murder babies by putting lead in their drinking water.

I might have expected such a rabid response from an intellectually challenged contributer like Three Goofs perhaps, but from you that was way out of line and you know it ! :caution:

 

[Grand Mal]

I might have expected such a rabid response from an intellectually challenged contributer like Three Goofs perhaps, but from you that was way out of line and you know it ! :caution:

He's got a point. I consider myself 'green' but I sure as hell don't fit your badmouth slanderous generalisation

 

[flogger]

He's got a point. I consider myself 'green' but I sure as hell don't fit your badmouth slanderous generalisation

Not all greenies are anti human nutjobs but there are way too many in positions of power and influence that are. Pointing that out doesnt make me a baby killer. If you want to talk about those then perhaps you should look at what these guys are saying first.

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: "A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer."

Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal: "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."

Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal: "The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing."

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

There are many many other anti human quotes like this too. So is it our threat to the environment or the agenda of environmentalism itself that represent the greater threat to the bulk of humanity ?

Go figure

 

[jmotivator]

Hydrogen is a "battery", not a fuel.

It has to be made, and that takes energy (fuel).

Hydrogen has to be made?

 

[What if...?]

Hydrogen has to be made?

To be used as a fuel, yes.

Not the individual molecules, theyrr all over the place.

Gathering them together may have been a better way to say it.

There are no hydrogen wells or mines.

 

[jmotivator]

To be used as a fuel, yes.

Not the individual molecules, theyrr all over the place.

Gathering them together may have been a better way to say it.

There are no hydrogen wells or mines.

Unlike crude oil which we pump directly into our cars?

 

[Papa bull]

Unlike crude oil which we pump directly into our cars?

That's almost correct. Petroleum is such an easily convertible fuel that only 14% of it's cost is refinement. So when we have something that gives us as much energy as a gallon of gasoline for the same price, we'll have a winner. Hydrogen isn't it.

 

[What if...?]

Unlike crude oil which we pump directly into our cars?

Huh, I thought you were chiding me for not speaking accurately.

Now I see you are ignorant of the subject.

Carry on.

 

[jmotivator]

Huh, I thought you were chiding me for not speaking accurately.

Now I see you are ignorant of the subject.

Carry on.

Sorry, I understand what you are saying. A morning and coffee does wonders. The only energy we can pull out of hydrogen is the energy we put into harvesting it, hence it is a battery. That's a elegant way of looking at the problem.

 

[What if...?]

Sorry, I understand what you are saying. A morning and coffee does wonders. The only energy we can pull out of hydrogen is the energy we put into harvesting it, hence it is a battery. That's a elegant way of looking at the problem.

And I apologize for the snark.

One of those days.

 

[Deuce]

I might have expected such a rabid response from an intellectually challenged contributer like Three Goofs perhaps, but from you that was way out of line and you know it ! :caution:

Oh I'm sorry. I thought we were doing that game where we make up wildly inaccurate motivations for the other side. Like "too fragile for us to be allowed to continue existing," which would imply that "greenies" want to end the human race. Your implication was far more severe than mine, flogger. If I was rabid, what were you?

 

[flogger]

Oh I'm sorry. I thought we were doing that game where we make up wildly inaccurate motivations for the other side. Like "too fragile for us to be allowed to continue existing," which would imply that "greenies" want to end the human race. Your implication was far more severe than mine, flogger. If I was rabid, what were you?

If you think your conduct there was acceptable then frankly you leave me little option but to report that post . Directly claiming a poster is a baby killer cannot be acceptable under any circumstances

 

[Deuce]

If you think your conduct there was acceptable then frankly you leave me little option but to report that post . Directly claiming a poster is a baby killer cannot be acceptable under any circumstances

Discussing moderator actions in-thread is inappropriate. If you actually thought the comment was serious and were actually offended by it, click the report button.

While you're at it, feel free to explain why you think saying "greenies" want to end the human race is "acceptable." Do you think I want to end the human race, flogger? Do you think even .00001% of people who support AGW theory want to end the human race? If yes, let me know so I can add you to the tinfoil hat truther mental list. If no, why are you discussing it? Would you like me to bring up some of the heinous **** that AGW "skeptics" on the Free Republic forums say?

 

[Helix]

Moderator's Warning:

Debate the topic, and avoid personal attacks.