High level nuclear waste is commonly processed by immobilizing it in borosilicate glass ("Pyrex", "Duran").
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And if you think the modern diesel engine in my pickup will cause carbon monoxide poisoning you're once again displaying your vast ignorance. |
Quote:
We should be helping poor nations develop for humanitarian reasons, those are more pressing and more immediate than the environmental ones. Along the way we can give them the benefit of our experience, help them preserve their environments now so they won't have to restore them later. But we've become so jaded that we believe the environment is of greater moral concern than world wide poverty. Unfortunately we can't solve poverty by protecting the environment. But knowing that we can protect the environment by solving poverty I think it's time to put the "Oh No, capitalism and greed and free trade is going to destroy the World" argument to bed. Those things won't necessarily save it but the rest of the world will industrialize eventually. Everyone will harvest their ores and their coal beds and their forests and their farm lands, and if we don't help them then we can't stop them from repeating our mistakes. |
Quote:
Thank you... Common sense isn't so common is it. Maybe you can take a class. Maybe you can get someone to pay for it as it's obvious that you haven't been able to afford it :EA: |
He's really not that smart multi. Don't let him intimidate you.
|
Quote:
Large parts of the world would be much better off today if not for all that "humanitarian" help. |
That's because humanitarian efforts have been spearheaded by well meaning imbeciles up 'til now. They've tried to provide what in America would be called welfare, and you're right, their booming populations can no longer sustain their former standards of living (which weren't very high to begin with). Now they haven't a choice, they must industrialize just to survive. Helping them to do so wouldn't be charity because we'd be profiting from it, but it would be the right thing to do, assuming we don't patronize the kinds of business that use slave labor or dump raw sewage into rivers. Since we can't undo the disruptions all our humanitarianism has caused then we may as well invite the rest of the world to join the twenty first century.
|
Quote:
But, while hardly an absolute, I must admit it is an excellent portrait of Bush and his supporters over the past years. Quote:
Quote:
This is from the EPA "State of Knowledge" site: Quote:
That global warming is alarmism and stupid and thought up by manipulative hypocrites isn't evidence pertaining to your premise, but that seems to be all you got. Lack of evidence for one thing is not evidence for another. You're still just chattering about your beliefs like a little monkey. Quote:
And 'improved significantly' isn't really science either, is it? Sounds more like a parrotsquawk to me. Mazer, charming rhetoric and point well taken, but various estimates show that 70%+ of the total global deforestation, for instance, is the direct result of commercial logging, farming and ranching. Greed is absolutely part of the equation. You can "put the argument to bed" all you want, but the reality ain't goin' to sleep. Quote:
You guys are talking about Iraq, right? Glad to see it finally sink in! HAR HAR HAR :) |
Well, I was talking mostly about African nations, but the same does apply to Iraq. I'm hopeful our troops will no longer need to be stationed there and our mission there will become a humanitarian one. Domestic politics will of course make that next to impossible after 2008. But aside from Iraq, Africa has the greatest number of people with the greatest need and we can't ignore that forever.
Quote:
There are a lot of good reasons to limit the spread commercialism, but the fear of greed is just not one of them. We've shown the impoverished people of the world that they can have more if they want it, and guess what, they do want more and there is nothing wrong with that. Greed is necessary to motivate people to get themselves out of poverty. It's a vice and a sin, but it is like you say a fundamental part of the equation, and we can't balance that equation if we try to limit commercial greed. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Well, settling this "discussion" should be easy.
Quote:
COLDER IS NOT WARMER, PERIOD. Thank You for demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that the global warming theory is 100% fallacy. |
Out of context:
Quote:
So, for the last time, while I know we are causing changes to the environment (fact), I have no evidence that global warming is either occurring or not, nor do I know what the subsequent consequences of global warming would be. MY POINT IS THAT NEITHER DO YOU. And yet you've just insisted, again, that it's fallacy. Seems you're willing to gamble with the future of the planet. Based on what? Even if such 'ice age' theories are wrong and completely outrageous this does not in itself 'demonstrate' that global warming isn't occuring, nor would it indicate that all other probable results would be insignificant. What we've established beyond a reasonable doubt that little albed's opinion about global warming isn't based on a single indicator germane to climatic research but is, as I postulated a few posts ago, based solely on his disdain of a political group he associates with the concept, I felt this was important to make explicitly clear for my own sake because ignorant asshats much like our little albed have the potential to influence others into believing that the possibility of global warming and its consequences are nothing more than a liberal agenda, a concern only for mindless hippies and tree huggers and absurdly power mad presidential wannabees, and 'no big deal' for supposed 'rational people' who may not only arrogantly absolve themselves from concern about the issue itself, but should be ready to reject or at least deride any and all countermeasures entailing even the most subtle changes to the status quo. This is most unfortunate as there is only one planet and we all have to live on it, even those with no respect for it. But if such "conservative" and technological changes serve the future, regardless of whether or not the globe gets warmer or colder, we will ultimately have done the right thing to anticipate the need anyway. There are more of us every day, and the question of global warming is really just an aspect of the larger question of critical mass itself. |
Quote:
But of course I think I know what you mean, humanitarian being more like food, clothing, shelter, aid and education and not, like, shooting and car bombs. ...But isn't that the kind of humanitarian aid you were just bemoaning? Seems like a cascade of contradictions there. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Pfft. Well, at least I got one of you fuckers to actually look at a website and learn a pretty new word, instead of standing there with a wrinkled nose going "NUH-UH" over and over because someone told you it was "unscientific."
Of course now you're an expert all over again. LOL. As far as my explanation, from your own link: Quote:
Quote:
|
So all that heat stays in the tropics and part of the world gets warmer while another part gets cooler and you somehow make that into "global cooling".
Have you no reasoning ability at all? |
Quote:
I can imagine you driving down the road and slamming on your brakes every 10 yards because someone might possibly pull into your path or cross into your lane and cause a crash. Even though there's no evidence, it still a possibility and being the irrational nutcase that you are, you think your behaviour is perfectly sensible and moreover that everyone should drive like you. |
Quote:
|
Wow, I feel really bad to be the one responsible for bringing the intellectual caliber of this forum so far down. Suppose I should just let you and your egghead conservative science critic buddies get back to jokes about the weather and asserting that global warming can't exist because Al Gore's electric bill is so high and other real science. And I would like to apologize unreservedly for stooping to the sensationalist bullshit of maintaining that data pertaining to the consequences of global warming are inconclusive.
I usually go elsewhere for an intelligent discussion myself. It's not just easier to do when people don't assume that your skepticism is politically driven, it's possible. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)