Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Environmental Perils

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by DisgruntledDog, Jun 23, 2009.

  1. This is a quote by Hornet from the Climate Change thread.
    I just don't see how people can be blind to the perils that are threatening the environment that supports us and all life forms on the planet. It's bleedingly obvious if you care to look.

    Death of the food chain


    Ocean Dead Zones


    Great Pacific Garbage Patch


    Global Topsoil Loss


    The Sixth Great Extinction


    The damage we are doing the environment is plain to see. There are plenty more example of the damage we're doing to the biosphere. This is serious Mum.
  2. I do not doubt we as humans have totally fukd the environment. I'm more concerned about our inaction at mass levels. Sure we can all reduce waste, not use plastic shopping bags etc, but larger, much larger plans or actions need to be in place at much higher levels, government for instance.

    Not wanting to steer this towards which government is doing what, I'm more of the thought that they are the ones with the major power to make change. However, I do not see that happening soon at all. This does worry me.
  3. I just don't see how blah blah blah

    Well-chosen username...
  4. Oh well said hornet, How about you come up with some evidence to refute what he said… Or are you going to be a hypocrite here as well as in the other thread.
  5. a hypocrite is someone who preaches one thing and does the opposite

    better find a different definition, or maybe just give up your fruitless vendetta instead, hmm??
  6. Evidence seems to suggest that we could be in the process of destroying the only place we know in the universe where we can live.

    But the environmental lobby could be wrong, so let just ignore it.
  7. You “Preach†science (to a degree) in your repetitive attempts to undermine scientific discussion you disagree with. But you don’t actually back your discussion with evidence. As such I will stand by my use of the label Hypocrite. Also this is not a vendetta, but you are “Preaching†an untruth. It is what you are saying that I am arguing against, and in this case your lack of intellectual rigor on the subject is evidence enough of the inaccuracy of your statements. So it may look like a vendetta to you, but if you aren’t blatantly inaccurate then I won’t have reason to refute what you say.
    So maybe you should “give up your fruitless preaching of untruthsâ
  8. Ask Malcom Turnbull about the accuracy and longevity of 'evidence' and 'truths'.

    Science (and statistics) can be used to 'prove' many things which may in the future be right, or wrong.

    Take your pick, believe what you want, and be prepared for others to do the same.
    If the others wish to argue their case, join in and have fun.
    If the others are not prepared to support their beliefs to you, just ignore and move on.

    Time will tell who's correct.

    Trouble with the future is it seems it can't read the warnings!
  9. If the others are not prepared to support their beliefs to you, just ignore and move on

    there's the problem

    you see I'm quite happy to state an opinion and move on, because I don't care whether people are convinced or not. I'm quite happy to state what I BELIEVE and move on, because if people don't want to believe, that becomes their problem, not mine.

    Others think that they can only validate their existence if they can convince someone to agree with them.

    Time will tell who's correct.

    Sadly, this is true, but it will be too late if they're wrong.
  10. Yep
    sums you up nicely
    what's your point?
  11. HAHHAHA… That is the most puerile Bovine Excrement.
    I don’t give a flying toss weather you believe what I have to say or not.
    But as soon as you put your view out there, it could infect others and as such I am going to identify what my information leads me to see as truth.
    You keep talking even though you have no backing evidence, you then try to undermine scientific principle (Once again with no backing evidence)
    So I am responding by applying the principles I agree to, to the argument, and those are scientific. Not based on faith or conjecture but fact and data.
    While you keep spouting inaccurate garbage I will keep shooting you down, and while you keep up these attempts at attacking a well based argument with unsupported conjecture and then running away when asked for backing evidence then I will keep saying you are a counter-intellectual hypocrite.
  12. You are insulting the counter intellectuals.
  13. Back to the topic. There's less plankton which may well mean less whales. Save the whales you say? What have the whales done for mankind? Were the whales saying, "save England" when they were under attack from the Bosch? Have they produced anything in the form of literature? But seriously, if we do something and we're wrong about environmental impact (i.e. we're on a warm up cycle like has occurred many times in the past and nothing is going to stop it) then at the very least something positive in terms of sustainability would be achieved. If we do something and limit or prevent the forecasts then well and good. If we do nothing then we will never know will we?
  15. Oh how I miss propilot
  16. but when did politicians being corrupt ever = proof that the science is wrong?
  17. What if we humans ruin the planet and force apocalypse before God gets here?? :shock:

    The OP's post is frightening. Granted it's a biased selection of observations - but you're unlikely to find direct opposite observations from the opposing side! Plankton's either there in it's 1960 quantities or it's not.

    Hornet's response is
  18. I never stated that the science is wrong. Its the spin that some place on the results and what they try and use them for is the wrong part about it. I have no issue with an attempt being made to limit the human impact. I have an issue with the spin-offs that go with it (i.e. some merely seeking to get a piece of the pie rather than using all for the good of advancement) which, to me, are not justified. Whilst I am part of the system, capitalism will eventually be our downfall.

    Here's some food for thought. When I did a first year Geology subject/course back in 1995, a graph was shown to the class and it showed historical warm up and cool down cycles. That graph was produced from analysing rocks from the surface to some great depth (I can't remember how many km down - something in the order of 20-40 km from memory). The explanation behind how that graph was produced seemed logical/feasible. It was put forward that we may simply be on a warm up cycle again. It was also added that the effect of humans this time around is unknown and we could be adding to it. The possibility exists that global warming and species not coping and dying out is going to happen whether or not we like it. That's not to say that we shouldn't do whatever we can to minimise any impact we're making.

    Another thing about science always being right, it isn't. Scientific 'facts' are made when everything that is known and accepted as true up to that point in time is used to back up an argument in order to turn it into a 'fact'. Later on that may be proven to be incorrect by science after huge advancements in technology.

    I'm conducting research at the moment and there are two lines of thought in my field which you could believe and both seem feasible with what we know at the moment. The barrow for one line of thought is being pushed in a big way by some and they are ridiculing and dismissing those with another line of thought. I am yet to find evidence in my research that those who are having sway right now are completely correct. In fact, I can categorically say that they are nowhere near as spot on as they claim with the literature they have produced in the leading and most widely accepted reputable journals. By applying their philosophy to my real measured results, their prediction methods for what my results should be are so far off the mark it isn't funny. Additionally, aspects of those with the suppressed opposing line of thought are proving to be correct when compared to my results.

  19. Look, I'm happy for people to have an opinion that is different to mine. If someone thinks that cruisers are better than sport bikes, that's fine by me. I don't agree with it but it's still fine by me. However, is someone says that cruisers handle better and are faster than sport bikes, I expect them to provide some evidence to back up that claim.

    I'm happy for you to believe that you'll be whisked off by your imaginary friend to some happy place while the rest of us rot for eternity. I don't happened to believe in fairy tales but that's okay, you're welcome to.

    If you claim that all the climate scientists are practicing pseudo-science I expect you to back up your claims with real evidence.
  20. Stuff the whales, plankton produces as much oxygen, if not more than all trees on earth!