'Please, Save My Planet'

[Chewbone]

Humans are cancer. We prove it by consuming and destroying the very body (Earth) that feeds and nourishes us. But humans are far worse than your run of the mill cancer. We will ultimately destroy all other species in the process.

[Chewbone]

I am embarassed to be a human

[Surf52]

bus only lanes wrote:

Nunya, please explain how protecting the polar bears is going to matter if the real culprit is melting sea ice.
How do you propose we stop it from melting? How much can we reduce our CO2 emissions and exactly how can we do that? And how much difference is that going to make? What will it cost is to do that? And will it be enough?
standing naked in front of a global business summit with a sign that reads "save the animals" may make you feel better. But if you expect anyone to take you seriously, you have to provide a well thought out cost/benefit analysis, with research based facts showing what you plan to accomplish, how, for how much money, and what the end result is.
So tell me. What in this for Joe Public??

Believe me, I don't think you wanna know.

[easy solution]

kookboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Another knuclehead! There are not too many people and this has been predicted for awhile. Paul Ehrlich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_B... predicted that we would all starve to death in the 70's. That didn't happen either. We are doing just fine and the key to limiting population growth is wealth and industrialization. As people move away from the farm children become a liability and they have less. This is why (excepting immigration) the population of the US would be in decline.
Kook

Kook,

You seem to be in agreement with me, yet you call me a knucklehead. Just because Paul Erlich was wrong doesn't automatically mean we aren't overpopulated.

You say the key is improving quality of life on a global scale. Then you said that the U.S. birth rate is low, immigration notwithstanding. Again, I agree with you.

So how am I a knucklehead?

[Rational Man]

Bill wrote:

In the 1800's when the British Parliament was arguing whether to end the slave trade, one of the politicians stood up and claimed that the slaves were brought up for exercise breaks during the voyage. He didn't mention that the "exercise" was done with whips.
When the Canadian parliament was discussing whether they should pass laws against child labour, the coal mining companies argued that it would cost too much to make the tunnels big enough for adults.
You global warming deniers on this thread are on the same moral level. Worse, because the harm is greater.

Wow, talk about comparing apples to .... locomotives maybe?

Is there global warming? Sure is. Is it MAN-MADE global warming? Sure isn't. No evidence whatsoever. The planet warms, the planet cools. And man has a trivial impact (if any) on either.

The man-made global warming hoax is just that: a HOAX. Follow the money, and see who is making hay from the sun shining. Floks like Al Gore and the carbon credit industry. What a scam!

[Rational Man]

Chewbone wrote:

I am embarassed to be a human

Don't feel bad. WE are embarassed you are human, also. Humans are supposed to use their minds -- not just their 'feelings'. "Humans are a cancer" -- PLEASE! What emotional pap.

If you think humans are so bad, why not reduce the number by eliminating yourself -- and raise the average IQ of the world at the same time.

[Vox]

Rick Moss wrote:

We have to think about the CHILDREN! What about the CHILDREN!
For thousands of years man has dreamed of being able to control the weather. Now it turns out we've been doing it all the time.
Who knew?!

Yes..yes...and according to C. Montgomery Burns man has yearned equally to destroy the Sun. Now it appears that time is at hand...

Seriously folks the global warming...opps...they meant 'climate change' as in backpeddling to say some kinda' change you see...er...um.

The Mideval Warming saw temperatures much higher then where we are now. And that was a prolonged warming trend that lasted hundreds of years. The polar bear was able to survive that time even when there were no restrictions on hunting. Not that there was that much going on but certainly there were more killed then as opposed to the hyper protected treatment this beast has garnered.

Point being the bear will weather any global climate change and in fact will probably do much better then expected. Meanwhile this means that there will be challenges to every new powerplant and oil exploration in the realm of the white bear. That also means that humans and Americans will suffer extensivlely deprived of the resources readily available to us.

And finally...of course man has nothing to do with climate change you dolts! It's the Sun and galactic bombardment and the magnetosphere that protects us or does not, depending on the sunspots etc.

[Cthulhu_]

Vox wrote:

Seriously folks the global warming...opps...they meant 'climate change' as in backpeddling to say some kinda' change you see...er...um.

It's global warming as in the Earth will warm over coming decades, just as it has warmed over past decades. Temperature rise will not be the only change, it's only one part of an overall change in the climate, ie climate change. There's no confusion there.

The Mideval Warming saw temperatures much higher then where we are now.

Maybe. We could be at or slightly higher by now, and another 1C warming will make it almost certain we are warmer.

The polar bear was able to survive that time even when there were no restrictions on hunting.

The polar bear is able to survive now, in 50 years time and in an even warmer world they will possibly be in far lower numbers as sea ice declines.

And finally...of course man has nothing to do with climate change you dolts! It's the Sun and galactic bombardment and the magnetosphere that protects us or does not, depending on the sunspots etc.

So the recent warming is due to a large increase in sunspots and a large increase in "galactic bombardment"? Im not sure how that works.

[kookboy]

easy solution wrote:

<quoted text>
Kook,
You seem to be in agreement with me, yet you call me a knucklehead. Just because Paul Erlich was wrong doesn't automatically mean we aren't overpopulated.
You say the key is improving quality of life on a global scale. Then you said that the U.S. birth rate is low, immigration notwithstanding. Again, I agree with you.
So how am I a knucklehead?

We are not overpopulated. You seem to miss that big disagreement in my post.

Kook

[NUNYA]

Chewbone wrote:

Humans are cancer. We prove it by consuming and destroying the very body (Earth) that feeds and nourishes us. But humans are far worse than your run of the mill cancer. We will ultimately destroy all other species in the process.

So true! If we are the superior beings, then we have an obligation to protect this planet and its inhabitants. All these inbreds on this thread care about is their right to: hunt, overconsume, do whatever it is they WANT to do because it is their "god" given right. They truly are a cancer on our society.

The real cure for our environmental problems is to understand that our job is to salvage Mother Nature. Luckily, there are plenty of good people out there who ARE doing the right thing.

[NUNYA]

bus only lanes wrote:

<quoted text>
You can call it "evolving" if that makes you feel good about yourself, but there is no such thing as a conscious evolution. Evolution is a biological process that takes place over thousands if not millions of years, based on a species needing to adapt to changing environmental conditions in order to survive.
Our ancestors WERE hunter gatherers, that's what their bodies were designed for. You do have that right at least. As much as you'd like to believe your body is designed differently, our digestive system and nutritional needs have remained unchanged. We don't need canine teeth because we have opposable thumbs and the ability to use tools. And we have never been carnivores like lions and canines -- we are and always have been omnivores. That's not likely to change any time soon, despite your desire to make it so.
If you really could set your mind to it and simply "evolve", why not learn to photosynthesize? Why not reduce our need for water, or sleep for that matter? Meat is a part of the human diet by design, Nunya. Choose to not eat it for sentimental reasons, or your personal convictions. But do not pretend your are "evolving".

Oh, the opposable thumb! HAHAA!!!
Our human anatomy is most similar to other herbivores and drastically different from carnivores. Carnivorous animals, including the lion, dog, wolf, cat, etc., have many unique characteristics which set them apart from us. They all possess a very simple and short digestive system -- only three times the length of their bodies. This is because flesh decays very rapidly and the products of this decay quickly poison the bloodstream if they remain too long in the body. So a short digestive tract was evolved for rapid expulsion of harmful bacteria from decomposing flesh, as well as stomachs with ten times as much hydrochloric acid as non-carnivorous animals (to digest tissue and bones). Meat-eating animals that hunt in the cool of the night and sleep during the day when it is hot do not need sweat glands to cool their bodies; they therefore do not perspire through their skin, but rather they sweat through their tongues. On the other hand, vegetarian animals, such as the cow, horse, zebra, deer, etc., spend much of their time in the sun gathering their food, and they freely perspire through their skin to cool their bodies. But the most significant difference between the natural meat-eaters and other animals is their teeth. Along with sharp claws, all meat-eaters, since they have to kill mainly with their teeth, possess powerful jaws and pointed, elongated, "canine" teeth to pierce tough hide and to spear and tear flesh. They do NOT have molars (flat, back teeth) which vegetarian animals need for grinding their food. Unlike grains, flesh does not need to be chewed in the mouth to predigest it; it is digested mostly in the stomach and the intestines.

Clearly we're capable of eating meat. But that doesn't mean it's natural. You can dress a monkey up in a cute little suit and teach it to perform circus tricks, but just because it can doesn't mean that it's natural -- nor that it should. When I say that meat-eating is unnatural, I mean simply that our bodies aren't optimized to have it be a normal part of our diets.

I doubt that we are ever going to come to any kind of agreement --you will NEVER convince me that hunting is a good thing. It's not too late for you to evolve into a more socially conscious, healthy, person. Unfortunately, I think you're more comfortable playing around the woods like a caveman.

[tina anne]

NUNYA wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, the opposable thumb! HAHAA!!!
Our human anatomy is most similar to other herbivores and drastically different from carnivores. Carnivorous animals, including the lion, dog, wolf, cat, etc., have many unique characteristics which set them apart from us. They all possess a very simple and short digestive system -- only three times the length of their bodies. This is because flesh decays very rapidly and the products of this decay quickly poison the bloodstream if they remain too long in the body. So a short digestive tract was evolved for rapid expulsion of harmful bacteria from decomposing flesh, as well as stomachs with ten times as much hydrochloric acid as non-carnivorous animals (to digest tissue and bones). Meat-eating animals that hunt in the cool of the night and sleep during the day when it is hot do not need sweat glands to cool their bodies; they therefore do not perspire through their skin, but rather they sweat through their tongues. On the other hand, vegetarian animals, such as the cow, horse, zebra, deer, etc., spend much of their time in the sun gathering their food, and they freely perspire through their skin to cool their bodies. But the most significant difference between the natural meat-eaters and other animals is their teeth. Along with sharp claws, all meat-eaters, since they have to kill mainly with their teeth, possess powerful jaws and pointed, elongated, "canine" teeth to pierce tough hide and to spear and tear flesh. They do NOT have molars (flat, back teeth) which vegetarian animals need for grinding their food. Unlike grains, flesh does not need to be chewed in the mouth to predigest it; it is digested mostly in the stomach and the intestines.
Clearly we're capable of eating meat. But that doesn't mean it's natural. You can dress a monkey up in a cute little suit and teach it to perform circus tricks, but just because it can doesn't mean that it's natural -- nor that it should. When I say that meat-eating is unnatural, I mean simply that our bodies aren't optimized to have it be a normal part of our diets.
I doubt that we are ever going to come to any kind of agreement --you will NEVER convince me that hunting is a good thing. It's not too late for you to evolve into a more socially conscious, healthy, person. Unfortunately, I think you're more comfortable playing around the woods like a caveman.

You also forgot that many herbavores have unique digestive systems from human as well. We were born with glands build for the express purpose of digesting meat. Also many carnavores had shorter digestive tracks because meat usally packs more nutrition than plants.

[NUNYA]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
You also forgot that many herbavores have unique digestive systems from human as well. We were born with glands build for the express purpose of digesting meat. Also many carnavores had shorter digestive tracks because meat usally packs more nutrition than plants.

Wow, thanks for the enlightenment! I'm sure you researched long and hard for that response. NOT!

[Surf52]

Chewbone wrote:

Humans are cancer. We prove it by consuming and destroying the very body (Earth) that feeds and nourishes us. But humans are far worse than your run of the mill cancer. We will ultimately destroy all other species in the process.

Did you actually learn this somewhere, or come up with it all by yourself?

Lay off the weed.

[Surf52]

NUNYA wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, thanks for the enlightenment! I'm sure you researched long and hard for that response. NOT!

It happens to be scientific fact. But what would you know?

[NUNYA]

Surf52 wrote:

<quoted text>
It happens to be scientific fact. But what would you know?

Oh yeah, where did you read that?

[Surf52]

NUNYA wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh yeah, where did you read that?

I would tell you but then I'd have to use too many small words to make you understand.

[Dave]

what a bunch of pigs wrote:

I love how you can all joke about global warming. Do any of you have children? I guess you don't care since you won't be around in several decades. I bet most of you who joke about this are spoiled baby boomers who never had to worry about their environmental footprint. Don't worry, just let your kids deal with your mistakes. That's the way to go, right? Keep up with the jokes!

Yes I have two boys and they don't belive Al Gore's Global Warming Grabage. They tell me they should lock him up in the mental institution

[NUNYA]

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I have two boys and they don't belive Al Gore's Global Warming Grabage. They tell me they should lock him up in the mental institution

Your poor kids...being raised by an idiot who they look up to for information. How sad for them.

[NUNYA]

Surf52 wrote:

<quoted text>
I would tell you but then I'd have to use too many small words to make you understand.

so basically you're F.O.S. what a surprise!