Blot out the Sun - Obama's Climate Plan

For me, and I feel like for any intelligent person,
it should be less about "global warming" and more about the FACT that we're hurting the planet.

You can deny global warming all you want,
but are you going to sit there and say pollution isn't a problem?
That the ice caps aren't melting at some ungodly rate?
That we're wayyy over populated and are destroying the earth?

Come one now, you don't need to believe we are the direct cause of the earth warming or cooling,
but to say we aren't doing damage is just ignorant.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by atomdanger

Eh, killing half the worlds population would probably do us all some good.
But it seems like a silly idea.

So, if you were to criticize Adolf Hitler, you'd say that he simply wasn't ambitious enough? Why settle for only killing 13,000,000 people, when we really need to be killing off 3,500,000,000 people?

[NateR]

Originally Posted by atomdanger

For me, and I feel like for any intelligent person,
it should be less about "global warming" and more about the FACT that we're hurting the planet.

You can deny global warming all you want,
but are you going to sit there and say pollution isn't a problem?
That the ice caps aren't melting at some ungodly rate?
That we're wayyy over populated and are destroying the earth?

Come one now, you don't need to believe we are the direct cause of the earth warming or cooling,
but to say we aren't doing damage is just ignorant.

Polution is a problem, but the factories set up in third world countries are what is doing all the damage. Even if you were to knock the United States back to the Stone Age, it would barely make a dent in the world's pollution levels.

Overpopulation is a myth. You could take the entire 7 billion person population of the planet and put them in the state of Texas and it would still be less congested than New York City. The problem is that large populations are crowded into too small of places.

Also, I don't believe that the polar ice caps are melting at an increased rate, because the climatologists are going off of an Evolutionary timetable. If you take the melting of glaciers that has taken place over the last 5,000-6,000 years and stretch it out over billions of years, then of course, what we measure today is going to appear frighteningly accelerated.

Basically, there is just not enough real science behind Global Warming to justify the measure that they are trying to take to stop it.

[rockdawg21]

Reducing pollution is just something that people should do, it's what I would consider a natural transition. Things such as battery-powered cars, renewable energy, etc. is simply progression.

But the ridiculous liberal ideas, California's ban on black vehicles because they are warmer on the inside and therefore require the use of more A/C to keep cool, blot out the sun - one of the essentials of life on this planet, etc. is so FAR beyond absurd, it's completely indescribable.

[rockdawg21]

Originally Posted by NateR

Polution is a problem, but the factories set up in third world countries are what is doing all the damage. Even if you were to knock the United States back to the Stone Age, it would barely make a dent in the world's pollution levels.

Overpopulation is a myth. You could take the entire 7 billion person population of the planet and put them in the state of Texas and it would still be less congested than New York City. The problem is that large populations are crowded into too small of places.

Also, I don't believe that the polar ice caps are melting at an increased rate, because the climatologists are going off of an Evolutionary timetable. If you take the melting of glaciers that has taken place over the last 5,000-6,000 years and stretch it out over billions of years, then of course, what we measure today is going to appear frighteningly accelerated.

Basically, there is just not enough real science behind Global Warming to justify the measure that they are trying to take to stop it.

Go look at Metro Manila, Philippines (using it as an example because I've been there - including the outlying cities). The physical size of it is 238.2 square miles - about the size of Chicago. In August 2007, there were 11.5 million people there vs. 3 million in Chicago. If you were to take the land size of San Antonio and use the same densities, you could fit nearly 20 million in this city alone. Overpopulation is just more liberal propaganda.

Originally Posted by NateR

Polution is a problem, but the factories set up in third world countries are what is doing all the damage. Even if you were to knock the United States back to the Stone Age, it would barely make a dent in the world's pollution levels.

I know a lot of the problem is from third world countries,
but that doesn't wash away our responsibilities.

We should still do what we can, rather than take a stance of, oh the US does well,
and other countries are doing worse, so I can pollute and waste all I want.

[rockdawg21]

Originally Posted by atomdanger

I know a lot of the problem is from third world countries,
but...I can pollute and waste all I want.

Wow! That sure is arrogant man!

Originally Posted by rockdawg21

Go look at Metro Manila, Philippines (using it as an example because I've been there - including the outlying cities). The physical size of it is 238.2 square miles - about the size of Chicago. In August 2007, there were 11.5 million people there vs. 3 million in Chicago. If you were to take the land size of San Antonio and use the same densities, you could fit nearly 20 million in this city alone. Overpopulation is just more liberal propaganda.

How is it just propaganda?
(for the record, the city you listed has a pop under 2 million,
so you're saying the outlying cities have over 9?)

Just because those people "fit" there, doesn't mean they aren't hurting the earth.
Is your argument that a city that size is doing no damage to the planet?

Or what did you think over population meant?


Feel free to find a clean city of any decent size.
Large populations cause a lot of pollution, a lot of waste, and a lot of problems.
People, all over the world need to take better care of where we live.

Originally Posted by rockdawg21

Wow! That sure is arrogant man!

LMAO

I do what I want! I throw my plastic from 6 packs in duck ponds!

[rockdawg21]

Originally Posted by atomdanger

How is it just propaganda?
(for the record, the city you listed has a pop under 2 million,
so you're saying the outlying cities have over 9?)

Just because those people "fit" there, doesn't mean they aren't hurting the earth.
Is your argument that a city that size is doing no damage to the planet?

Or what did you think over population meant?


Feel free to find a clean city of any decent size.
Large populations cause a lot of pollution, a lot of waste, and a lot of problems.
People, all over the world need to take better care of where we live.

Having large groups of people living together isn't harmful, that's just crap.

That's why I typed Metro Manila, and not Manila

Tell you this, have you ever been to the country? Go look at a farmer's land and tell me it's clean - they usually have old equipment, trash ditches, etc. on their property. Just because a person lives outside of the city doesn't mean they aren't polluting.

Yeah, I've been to Manila though. It's messed up. There's tons of signs there that read "Keep Manila Beautiful", but, there aren't any public trash cans, so of course, everybody throws their trash on the ground.