The typical rabid greenist argument...
rakedog said:
Okay. Topic = Global warming
To start off, if anyone here is going to be banned, it will be you for flaming everyone, but anyhow.
No it is you for calling people disgusting, I did likewise.
It is true that the earth does 'naturally' heat slowly. However, here is the problem. The way the earth 'recycling' system works is:
Carbon Dioxide released by cars, humans, everything -> goes to plants -> plants do photosynthesis -> water and oxygen released.
Carbon dioxide gets released in greater amounts by natural events such as volcanoes, by two hundred fold. It is very illogical to say we have impacted more then 1% of the current global warming.
Now let's talk rainforests. The world rainforests are the key to photosynthesis. They are extremely dense, and contain a LOT of green plants that do photosynthesis at astronomical rates. The Amazon River forests alone have been estimated to recycling up to 20% of the world carbon dioxide. It's the biggest rainforest in the world, so obviously, it's very important. The problem is that we are cutting them down at a rate of more then all the land in poland per year.
I'm not denying that at all. In fact blame the socialist government in Brazil for allowing the problem to continue. They should stop there illogical economic program that hasn't helped their economy that much and put something that is more sound, like working towards a high tech society. We have one to look forward to and it is not radical green policies that you want. It is the next wave of industry, the high tech sector. Let businesses go high-tech and this will help them pollute less. Same goes with cars. We have fuel cell cars, hybrid cars and hydrogen cars I believe on the horizon. We will need less and less wood from trees for heating. The timber and agricultural industry is the one you should be complaining about in Brazil. The top soil in jungles is actually very poor if you want to know the truth.
And No, it is NOT possible to simple 'regrow' these rainforsts. Because of the density of the forest, it takes hundreds of years to get them into their original condition. And this is all only about rainforests, i'm not talking about regular timber.
I never said that and I also propose asking the Brazilian government to do something more. It is their land. They encompass the largest amount of jungle in South America.
Simple: We have jumped up on CO2 emmision from cars and factories, and AT THE SAME TIME, we are cutting down the only thing that will restore oxygen back into the atmosphere.
What do you propose numb nuts? Cutting down carbon dioxide emissions? Not possible. We need to economically expand. The kyoto protocol would kill the economy. We need to advance to a technological society, something you greens don't think about.
We need to immidiately cut down on this, and Bush isn't willing to be that supportive of it. In fact, he delayed and propsed INCREASING the methyl bromide production, instead of trying to reduce it.
Bush has increased ozone restrictions and has increased restrictions on arsenic for example. Your statement is a typical myth of the left wing. You got bought into a typical argument that just isn't true at all.
His administration rolled back 30 years of progress under the Clean Air and Water Act and allowed polluters to put toxic levels of mercury in our air and water.
No it hasn't.
But my whole point of my arguement is that we need to REDUCE car and facotry CO2 production, Stop the cuttdown of rainforests at all times, and rebuild them. The 1 degree increase in temperature may be 'natural', but normally these processes take hundreds of years, not 30.
WE CANNOT REDUCE factory production at all. That's illogical and retarded. I'm sorry. You don't know what you are talking about. Our factories make up such a small amount of global warming it is almost negiglible. We won't stop it by reducing factory production. The only thing we will do is eliminate jobs by following that greenist crap.
Oh and about your comment on the arctic refuge, do you realize how BIG that thing is? 5% is a huge area!
It is frozen wasteland. And 95% of it won't be touched. You sir are an idiot. That statement above proves how non-intelligent you really are. You realize what kind of land you are talking about? This land that will be effected doesn't have life, it is in an area of the refuge that doesn't have life.
It is about time you start using common sense.