digsthepack
15 years ago
Why must the man-made global warming crowd overlook the fact that, for millions of years, the earth has had warming and cooling trends? Because this is not about climate, this is about power and control....of you, and of all humanity.

The left has dreamed of this for decades, and they think that MMGW is their vehicle to do so. Unfortunately, that pesky little bitch Mother Nature is not cooperating.

Nothing but a UN (and leftist western leaders) money grab into the pockets of productive western nations to dispense amongst the worlds primitives... who will only use the windfall to kill one another in new and creative ways.

The hubris to think that we have that kind of impact on nature is astounding...we are but a flea on a dog, and when Mother Nature is sick of us, she will scratch us off.
State Motto: "Wisconsin, our serial murderers eat their kill!"
DakotaT
15 years ago
What I wouldn't do for some dfostr beer farts right about now. 20 below today (that's fricken cold for you guys on the metric system) and my car starter decides it's time for batteries.

Actually if that super volcanoe at Yellowstone pops, we're all done. And I hope Al Gore is camping there at the time. Until then, I'm going to enjoy my crew cab Silverado and the clean air of the Northern Plains.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
15 years ago

What I wouldn't do for some dfostr beer farts right about now. 20 below today (that's fricken cold for you guys on the metric system) and my car starter decides it's time for batteries.

Actually if that super volcanoe at Yellowstone pops, we're all done. And I hope Al Gore is camping there at the time. Until then, I'm going to enjoy my crew cab Silverado and the clean air of the Northern Plains.

"DakotaT" wrote:



For some reason your first paragraph, Dakota, got me thinking of a certain scene from Blazing Saddles. :)

One thing I will definitely give you -- though I bitch (not whine!) about cold, there's few things better than that "clean Northern plains air" you talk about.

:)
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
15 years ago



I don't really understand your parallel between the growth of consumption of the world's resources and the economy. The economy is a human construct, as is wealth. Environmental resources and their limits exist with or without us humans.

250 years may be significant when discussing economic growth, but it is a tiny blip on the radar when discussing the survivability of a species and the sustainability of a lifestyle, especially one that consumes like the human species consumes.

Human ingenuity is very impressive, but it doesn't negate the fact that ingenuity forced upon us by larger populations and larger consumption has led to serious health and environmental issues over a relatively tiny period of time.

I couldn't tell if you were saying resources X, Y, and Z were used by us or we did not know how to convert them to useful energy, etc... or how "waste" and our definition of waste is defined, but surely you've heard of entropy. The more we convert these resources into energy, the more the output becomes less usable and less efficient. Waste is simply waste, at some point.

"Wade" wrote:



"Environmental limits exist with or without us humans." True. But IMO beside the point. Call me human-centric, but apart from my dog I don't much care what happens to rest of the planet inhabitants if all human life is gone.

The question, ISTM, is whether we should operate as if those limits are as defined by the current state of human knowledge.

Yes, the economy is a human construct. It's a construct defined by how it reshapes the environment. Reshaping the environment (or trying to) is what human beings do. We make stone and wood into houses. We make iron ore and coal into steel. We put nitrogen and water and soil together in new ways to get higher yields of corn. Man's "natural" place in nature is to strive to change it.

I believe in entropy, yes. I believe I'm going to die and become worm food. (I also believe I'm going to live again, eternally, but that's another piece of faith that really isn't relevant here.)

But in the meantime I've got to decide what I have faith in and what I'm going to fear. I've got to decide what I believe is possible and and what is not.

Yes, 250 years, in terms of the length of human existence on the planet, is pretty short. And in terms of the life of the universe, it's less than a blip. But 250 years is also 8-12 generations of human existence. And 3-4 times my expected lifespan. That, to me, is grounds for much hope.

Now, if my hope is ill-founded, I'm part of the problem. I'm accelerating our decline. But, to be frank, it's worth taking a risk. Because if the "our current lifestyle can't be sustained" argument is correct, then there's not much of an argument for any of that edifice of technology and economic growth we've built over those 250 years. If the last 250 is just a blip before Malthus is proven right...well, we've got about 80 percent of the world's population to get rid of. Because the "simple" and "natural" world of 1750 couldn't sustain all of us.

In the end, entropy is God's problem, not mine. By God's standards of what constitutes "important works", anything we do is a waste. But I don't ask myself to solve God's problems. That's too hubristic even for an economist.

"Waste is simply waste, at some point." Sure. But the key, you see, is "when is 'some point'?" The answer to that "when?" question is going to be determined, not by the amount of oil we have or by the carbon footprint we make or, even by the number of species we kill, but by the limits of our human ingenuity.

Resources are here to be converted into other forms and used. Waste, to me, consists of two things: (i) taking away the incentive to find new ways to convert those resources in the name of "conservation"; and (ii) converting resources into a form that no one can figure out how to use.

(i) v. (ii) IMO is where the debate on sustainability belongs.

But shifting the debate alone isn't enough. We must also recognize that it is a debate that takes place on grounds of faith as well as grounds of reason. We are all intellectual descendents of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. We value, and rightly so, the "scientific evidence" on a question such as this. But because the science involved is not just the science of "resource limits" or of "physical entropy" but the science of "the limits of human understanding of resource limits in the future" and the science of "the extent of human ingenuity's ability to postpone entropy in the future", we must -- all of us, on all sides -- take one or more stances of faith about what might happen in the future.

Because none of us knows the future.

My "human ingenuity" stance is based on my deciding which historical evidence is most persuasive to me (i.e. the last 250 years). But that deciding is, in the end a stance of faith.

But so, too, is everyone's deciding on what they believe about the future.

(shrug)

"MassPackersFan" wrote:



Well, I disagree with you on just about every point you make in this post, :lol: but at least you stand by your beliefs, and have thought a good deal about it, which I respect.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
15 years ago



Well, I disagree with you on just about every point you make in this post, :lol: but at least you stand by your beliefs, and have thought a good deal about it, which I respect.

"MassPackersFan" wrote:



Hey, no problem. Most people disagree with me most of the time. :)

After all, just because most people think I'm a flake, doesn't mean I'm not one. :)

And, MassPackersFan, the respect is mutual.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Cheesey
  • Cheesey
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
15 years ago

Why must the man-made global warming crowd overlook the fact that, for millions of years, the earth has had warming and cooling trends? Because this is not about climate, this is about power and control....of you, and of all humanity.

The left has dreamed of this for decades, and they think that MMGW is their vehicle to do so. Unfortunately, that pesky little bitch Mother Nature is not cooperating.

Nothing but a UN (and leftist western leaders) money grab into the pockets of productive western nations to dispense amongst the worlds primitives... who will only use the windfall to kill one another in new and creative ways.

The hubris to think that we have that kind of impact on nature is astounding...we are but a flea on a dog, and when Mother Nature is sick of us, she will scratch us off.

"digsthepack" wrote:


Digs....you are getting a plus one from me. You hit the nail on the head.
Again, the money. Follow that, and you find out what's REALLY up.

I doubt that 100 years from now, they will be using the same fuels we are using now. Things will change.
The funny part is, all the countries that don't "fall in line" for the environmental groups are still pouring junk into the air. But WE have to do all these bizarre things to "SAVE the planet!"
That's like having 20 people smoking in a room, and one quits to make the air pure. Yeah, it will make a LITTLE difference, but not as big a deal as the one that quits thinks it will.
JMO of course.
UserPostedImage
porky88
15 years ago
Scare tactics are apart of the American political system. Every political party uses scare tactics and it'll continue for awhile. It's bloated in today's age because of technology, and the internet, so global warming is hardly the first thing a political party has tried to scare people about.

Scientists have a consensus that global warming is real, but they don't call it global warming. Most of them say climate change because it effects rains and snow too. Whether or not humans are apart of it is a debate that has gone on in America for the last decade, but the scientific community has agreed for awhile now that humans are indeed contributing because of the greenhouse gases that we're emitting into the air. This is hardly something liberals discussed in their secret world take over meeting held in the 90's about what to scare people with at the turn of the century. :)

This goes way back.

Yes, Earth's climate has a history of changing going back millions of years, but the rate it's changing at right now normally takes thousands of years to occur. Not decades, which we're seeing and it's also occurring coincidentally (or not) with the industrial age in which greenhouse gases increased by more than a third. That's a lot. America is responsible for 20% of the world's greenhouse gases, so the smoking analogy used by Cheesey just doesn't work. Four people would have to quit and leave the room. America should lead the way on this. If they even cut it down to where it was during the early 90's, it would be a huge step in the right direction.

We're not going die from it anytime soon. I would say the chances of a Meteor taking us out is probably greater than global warming, but it could and will lead to a miserable life for a lot of people if some countries don't make some changes in their policies. Specifically, China and the U.S.
Cheesey
  • Cheesey
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
15 years ago
Porky said: "the rate it's changing at right now normally takes thousands of years to occur."
Really? And how do they PROVE that? Were any of them alive "thousands" of years ago? Nope. It's all based on guessing.
Thousands of years ago, EVERYTHING was different on this planet then it is now. For them to say they KNOW what it was like back then is easy. Make up what you want to. Who can dissprove it?
They do the same thing with evolution. Find a fossil of an animal, say "Gee, it looks like it could be the ancestor of a horse" and suddenly it's the early begginning of what today are horses. All you need is imagination to make that or "global warming" made by man.
The oxygen level was different thousands of years ago. The earth was farther from the sun. The sun's gravitational pull has put us closer to it. Huh.......I wonder if THAT might be the whole reason for "global warming", and NOT how much gas we are putting into the air.
UserPostedImage
porky88
15 years ago

Porky said: "the rate it's changing at right now normally takes thousands of years to occur."
Really? And how do they PROVE that? Were any of them alive "thousands" of years ago? Nope. It's all based on guessing.
Thousands of years ago, EVERYTHING was different on this planet then it is now. For them to say they KNOW what it was like back then is easy. Make up what you want to. Who can dissprove it?
They do the same thing with evolution. Find a fossil of an animal, say "Gee, it looks like it could be the ancestor of a horse" and suddenly it's the early begginning of what today are horses. All you need is imagination to make that or "global warming" made by man.
The oxygen level was different thousands of years ago. The earth was farther from the sun. The sun's gravitational pull has put us closer to it. Huh.......I wonder if THAT might be the whole reason for "global warming", and NOT how much gas we are putting into the air.

"Cheesey" wrote:



The Sun hasn't expanded enough in the last few decades for the changes to accelerate like they have. Has the Sun gotten bigger when you look up at it? Of course not....

I don't want this to get too far off topic but in the fairness of debate.

The argument you use against evolution and global warming is the same arguement that can be asked about faith. How do you prove god created humans? You can't. You can say the bible and I have faith, but that is hardly evidence. I'm assuming based on past posts your a religious man and a creationist. You and I both know, I'm not going to change your mind about global warming then. 🙂 I'll post what I know, but I'm not a scientist and I'm hardly someone who is qualified to answer your question.

I don't want to come across like I'm insulting faith or something. You're entitled to your opinion and beliefs. I have no problem.

I would suggest to research your question or find away to talk to a professor of a university (if possible maybe through family) and get your answer that way. Not through politicians whether it's Al Gore who's for it or Sarah Palin who thinks it's a hoax.

To be fair here again, I know that your fast to agree with the statement that earth's climate has always been changing even millions of years ago so this is common stuff, but you don't ask the question you just asked me when that is referenced. How do we know?

The answer is through science and scientist which tell us climate change is real and it's man made. I'm just saying....

Scientist, I know use paleonclimatology to study Earth's past climate. They use tree rings as proxies because trees rely on temperature for growth and some trees can reach up to a few thousand years old. You also have tiny bubbles in ice cores. The oldest one is over 800,000 years old. Don't believe that? You can take bacteria or fossils from it, which lives in preferred temperature and come up with data that way. That's a couple thousands years old. They also use coral rings, which is similar to tree rings. They use cave sedimentary rocks too. They don't just sit around and punch numbers into a machine and come up with ridiculous numbers. They're using natural stuff on Earth.

The simplest way, perhaps, is there are also records dating back to the 19th century and nothing in those records suggest what's going on now went on back then. That, plus the fact that we've omitted a lot of greenhouse gases since the 50's or even 15% more since the early 90's suggests something is happening and we're doing something. 11 of the hottest years on record took place between the mid 90's and mid 2000's. The 2000's, was the hottest decade on record and we have nearly 200 years of records. It runs parallel with each other. Draw your own conclusions. My opinion is most scientists are smarter than you and I. If I'm going to credit them for saying Earth's climate is always changing, then I'm certainly not going to discredit them in saying man is accelerating Earth's climate change.
15 years ago

Why must the man-made global warming crowd overlook the fact that, for millions of years, the earth has had warming and cooling trends? Because this is not about climate, this is about power and control....of you, and of all humanity.

The left has dreamed of this for decades, and they think that MMGW is their vehicle to do so. Unfortunately, that pesky little bitch Mother Nature is not cooperating.

Nothing but a UN (and leftist western leaders) money grab into the pockets of productive western nations to dispense amongst the worlds primitives... who will only use the windfall to kill one another in new and creative ways.

The hubris to think that we have that kind of impact on nature is astounding...we are but a flea on a dog, and when Mother Nature is sick of us, she will scratch us off.

"Cheesey" wrote:


Digs....you are getting a plus one from me. You hit the nail on the head.
Again, the money. Follow that, and you find out what's REALLY up.

I doubt that 100 years from now, they will be using the same fuels we are using now. Things will change.
The funny part is, all the countries that don't "fall in line" for the environmental groups are still pouring junk into the air. But WE have to do all these bizarre things to "SAVE the planet!"
That's like having 20 people smoking in a room, and one quits to make the air pure. Yeah, it will make a LITTLE difference, but not as big a deal as the one that quits thinks it will.
JMO of course.

"digsthepack" wrote:



What countries? China and the U.S. are the worst polluters by far, I think, which is why there is such a great focus on them.

I'm pretty sure Wade would agree with me that Mother Nature won't simply "scratch us off", given our ingenuity and ability to find new ways to use the world's resources as we see fit, regardless of the long term consequences. And if it DOES get to the point where shit is SO bad that we can no longer survive, then yes, this world will shrug us off and start the long cleansing and rebuilding process of life on the planet. But do we really want to get to that point? How is that a solution?
UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Mucky Tundra (10m) : the Synder years or do they take care of one of their own?
    Mucky Tundra (10m) : Do the Commanders risk losing a top WR with an emerging QB just because he's turning 30 and potentially risk damaging the rebuild from
    Mucky Tundra (17m) : Turns 30 this September, plays at a high level and Washington has some cap space I believe
    Mucky Tundra (17m) : More interesting is Washington with Terry McLaurin
    Mucky Tundra (18m) : I would imagine Dallas will resolve this issue with a truckload of money
    Zero2Cool (2h) : Micah pulling a Myles with trade request
    beast (8h) : Packers should make some cheese forks
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : GRAB THE PITCHFORKS~
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : CUT HIM
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : Socieltal collapse imminent
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : The West has fallen
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : After starting off camp with 25 straight made field goals, Brandon McManus has missed one
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : But it should be stable
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : It's probably gonna be slower.
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : We're gonna just full go on to the new host.
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : What crap. Site issues galore
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : if PH dies, there is packerpeople com available
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : database is on new host, eventually website will follow
    Mucky Tundra (30-Jul) : Zero, regarding Ewers, you are correct.
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Sadly, this might be our life for awhile. I could put it on another host, but seems it was slower, although more stable
    beast (30-Jul) : How long will it be down?
    beast (30-Jul) : RIP site 😭
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Site will die, I have to restart it.
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Quinn stinks. Lot of underthrows. (my guess)
    beast (30-Jul) : How did Quinn Ewers effect where Golden was drafted?
    dfosterf (30-Jul) : All I've experienced was late at night or early morning. I just figured you were doing something in the background
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Site sure seems to be down more than up
    dfosterf (29-Jul) : 50 cent hookers? I'm moving to Green Bay. I thought it was just real estate that was more affordable there. 😂
    Zero2Cool (29-Jul) : Sure seems site going down more than 50¢ hooker
    Mucky Tundra (27-Jul) : Golden with two TDs in red zone drills today
    Mucky Tundra (27-Jul) : @JacobMorley Shoutout to Quinn Ewers for allowing Matthew Golden to be available when Green Bay picked.
    Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : The menu you expanded to log in, it's the first icon under "PackersHome" .. maybe i should add text to it
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : Feelin' pfowish can't find the sun. No big deal, will drag a laptop out when the time comes
    Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : if you're on mobile, open the menu and its the "sun" icon
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : Can't find the toggle, lol
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : I can find that the Microsoft lady rep for Titletown Tech is the philanthropy boss for the entire Microsoft corporation, but. .
    Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : There's a toggle for light/dark theme. Super easy.
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : The white background beta was hard to read, especially the quotes
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : Hopefully the color scheme remains the same
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : *Friday*
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : 100 million would be 539 million as of Fridsy
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : Heck, they could have taken a hundred milliion and invested in DAVE inc. last year (semi random, humor, but real)
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : Beer brat and ticket is where the money comes from
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : The 40th is Titletown Tech itself. This is a pet project of both Ed Policy and Mark Murphy
    Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : New site coming along nicely. The editor is better than what we have here. Oh yeah!
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : No profit that I know of. 0 for 40
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : The woke reference has to do with the makeup and oftentimes objectives of the companies they invested in
    packerfanoutwest (27-Jul) : beer and brats woke? say whom?
    beast (27-Jul) : I don't want to get into politics, but how is, beers and brats considered to be "woke"? Food is food...
    beast (27-Jul) : That being said, I'm not saying all 100% should be that way, but not surprised if majority are Wisconsin based
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    4h / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

    6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    31-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    31-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    28-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

    25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.