Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-13-2007 Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches
Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.
Southeast England has been sinking slowly since the Ice Age and sea levels on the east coast have risen 20 cm since 1900, the Trust said.
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-13-2007 Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches
Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.
Southeast England has been sinking slowly since the Ice Age and sea levels on the east coast have risen 20 cm since 1900, the Trust said.
in other words, it has NOTHING to do with global warming...
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-13-2007 Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches
Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.
Southeast England has been sinking slowly since the Ice Age and sea levels on the east coast have risen 20 cm since 1900, the Trust said.
in other words, it has NOTHING to do with global warming...
Never heard of the Industrial Revolution eh?
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-13-2007 Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches
Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.
Southeast England has been sinking slowly since the Ice Age and sea levels on the east coast have risen 20 cm since 1900, the Trust said.
in other words, it has NOTHING to do with global warming...
Never heard of the Industrial Revolution eh?
Do you even read the stories you post? Huh?
What part of SINKING SINCE THE ICE AGE didn't you get? It kind of predates the industrial revolution by a whole lot.
The only thing you have to worry about drowning in is your stupidity.
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-13-2007 Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches
Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.
Southeast England has been sinking slowly since the Ice Age and sea levels on the east coast have risen 20 cm since 1900, the Trust said.
in other words, it has NOTHING to do with global warming...
Never heard of the Industrial Revolution eh?
Do you even read the stories you post? Huh?
What part of SINKING SINCE THE ICE AGE didn't you get? It kind of predates the industrial revolution by a whole lot.
The only thing you have to worry about drowning in is your stupidity.
Fact of the matter is, you can ignore the evidence all you want, stick your head in the sand all you want, stick you head as far up the collective neocon bunghole all you want, label treehuggers and joke about "the sky is falling" all you want, but guess what? There's no need to prove anything to you. Thats right. You are already and have always been comfortably denying a moral obligation. There's no point in attempting to convince one whose morality is so corrupt anyway.
The issue is not the greenhouse effect or global warming. It's not pollution or deforestation. It's not the raping of the world's natural resources or the unsustainable abuse of the environment. None of those in particular.
It is the undeniable claim that humans are the stewards of the world they live in as given to them by God. And this stewardship has been completely ignored and even denied.
The National Trust said it faced a difficult choice between letting the coastline erode naturally and intervening to protect houses or the landscape.
It has opted for a policy of "adaptation" -- working with nature rather than trying to hold the line with stronger sea defenses.
Britain's coast has been evolving for tens of thousands of years, with some landmarks now submerged. Occasionally the process works the other way and the sea retreats, leaving former ports stuck miles inland.
The medieval port of Dunwich in Suffolk, eastern England, now lies under the North Sea, while coastal erosion created the Needles, landmark chalk stacks off the Isle of Wight.
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-13-2007 Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches
Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.
Southeast England has been sinking slowly since the Ice Age and sea levels on the east coast have risen 20 cm since 1900, the Trust said.
in other words, it has NOTHING to do with global warming...
Never heard of the Industrial Revolution eh?
Do you even read the stories you post? Huh?
What part of SINKING SINCE THE ICE AGE didn't you get? It kind of predates the industrial revolution by a whole lot.
The only thing you have to worry about drowning in is your stupidity.
Fact of the matter is, you can ignore the evidence all you want, stick your head in the sand all you want, stick you head as far up the collective neocon bunghole all you want, label treehuggers and joke about "the sky is falling" all you want, but guess what? There's no need to prove anything to you. Thats right. You are already and have always been comfortably denying a moral obligation. There's no point in attempting to convince one whose morality is so corrupt anyway.
The issue is not the greenhouse effect or global warming. It's not pollution or deforestation. It's not the raping of the world's natural resources or the unsustainable abuse of the environment. None of those in particular.
It is the undeniable claim that humans are the stewards of the world they live in as given to them by God. And this stewardship has been completely ignored and even denied.
I know Dave didn't read the article, did you:
The National Trust said it faced a difficult choice between letting the coastline erode naturally and intervening to protect houses or the landscape.
It has opted for a policy of "adaptation" -- working with nature rather than trying to hold the line with stronger sea defenses.
Britain's coast has been evolving for tens of thousands of years, with some landmarks now submerged. Occasionally the process works the other way and the sea retreats, leaving former ports stuck miles inland.
The medieval port of Dunwich in Suffolk, eastern England, now lies under the North Sea, while coastal erosion created the Needles, landmark chalk stacks off the Isle of Wight.
I live on an island, i've watch beaches change greatly over the years, its nothing new, and nothing that man can do.
Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.
"It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way."
Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance.
"There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Cosmic rays blamed for global warming
Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.
Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.
In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-13-2007 Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches
Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.
Southeast England has been sinking slowly since the Ice Age and sea levels on the east coast have risen 20 cm since 1900, the Trust said.
in other words, it has NOTHING to do with global warming...
Never heard of the Industrial Revolution eh?
Do you even read the stories you post? Huh?
What part of SINKING SINCE THE ICE AGE didn't you get? It kind of predates the industrial revolution by a whole lot.
The only thing you have to worry about drowning in is your stupidity.
Fact of the matter is, you can ignore the evidence all you want, stick your head in the sand all you want, stick you head as far up the collective neocon bunghole all you want, label treehuggers and joke about "the sky is falling" all you want, but guess what? There's no need to prove anything to you. Thats right. You are already and have always been comfortably denying a moral obligation. There's no point in attempting to convince one whose morality is so corrupt anyway.
The issue is not the greenhouse effect or global warming. It's not pollution or deforestation. It's not the raping of the world's natural resources or the unsustainable abuse of the environment. None of those in particular.
It is the undeniable claim that humans are the stewards of the world they live in as given to them by God. And this stewardship has been completely ignored and even denied.
I know Dave didn't read the article, did you:
The National Trust said it faced a difficult choice between letting the coastline erode naturally and intervening to protect houses or the landscape.
It has opted for a policy of "adaptation" -- working with nature rather than trying to hold the line with stronger sea defenses.
Britain's coast has been evolving for tens of thousands of years, with some landmarks now submerged. Occasionally the process works the other way and the sea retreats, leaving former ports stuck miles inland.
The medieval port of Dunwich in Suffolk, eastern England, now lies under the North Sea, while coastal erosion created the Needles, landmark chalk stacks off the Isle of Wight.
I live on an island, i've watch beaches change greatly over the years, its nothing new, and nothing that man can do.
Well, unless there's substantial new evidence reported for why GW is NOT manmade, there's really nothing thats going to be news to persuade or dissuade me. What you're citing has never been in doubt. There will always be many examples of natural changes which might seem to prove or deny man's impact on the environment to the uninformed. Many try to use those as evidence that there is no evidence or that there's not enough evidence for GW, but fail to understand that our world is not a static one by nature and changes are bound to happen.
This is why we can't always focus on the details, even if it is overwhelmingly evident to me. What we need to focus on is the question of whether we will accept or deny our obligation to environmental stewardship. If you deny, or claim that your short term freedoms and well-being is all that matters to you, then no argument anyone makes will matter.
If you accept, then you need to face the evidence which compels us to see that we have without a doubt failed in our obligation - the US, and the world. But the US first, because we are supposed to be the most powerful country economically, and we should set the examples.
I hear the necons gagging in the background while they order more troops out to die while protecting our oil, and cutting more social security to pay for it...
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-13-2007 Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches
Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.
Southeast England has been sinking slowly since the Ice Age and sea levels on the east coast have risen 20 cm since 1900, the Trust said.
in other words, it has NOTHING to do with global warming...
Never heard of the Industrial Revolution eh?
Do you even read the stories you post? Huh?
What part of SINKING SINCE THE ICE AGE didn't you get? It kind of predates the industrial revolution by a whole lot.
The only thing you have to worry about drowning in is your stupidity.
Fact of the matter is, you can ignore the evidence all you want, stick your head in the sand all you want, stick you head as far up the collective neocon bunghole all you want, label treehuggers and joke about "the sky is falling" all you want, but guess what? There's no need to prove anything to you. Thats right. You are already and have always been comfortably denying a moral obligation. There's no point in attempting to convince one whose morality is so corrupt anyway.
The issue is not the greenhouse effect or global warming. It's not pollution or deforestation. It's not the raping of the world's natural resources or the unsustainable abuse of the environment. None of those in particular.
It is the undeniable claim that humans are the stewards of the world they live in as given to them by God. And this stewardship has been completely ignored and even denied.
I know Dave didn't read the article, did you:
The National Trust said it faced a difficult choice between letting the coastline erode naturally and intervening to protect houses or the landscape.
It has opted for a policy of "adaptation" -- working with nature rather than trying to hold the line with stronger sea defenses.
Britain's coast has been evolving for tens of thousands of years, with some landmarks now submerged. Occasionally the process works the other way and the sea retreats, leaving former ports stuck miles inland.
The medieval port of Dunwich in Suffolk, eastern England, now lies under the North Sea, while coastal erosion created the Needles, landmark chalk stacks off the Isle of Wight.
I live on an island, i've watch beaches change greatly over the years, its nothing new, and nothing that man can do.
Well, unless there's substantial new evidence reported for why GW is NOT manmade, there's really nothing thats going to be news to persuade or dissuade me. What you're citing has never been in doubt. There will always be many examples of natural changes which might seem to prove or deny man's impact on the environment to the uninformed. Many try to use those as evidence that there is no evidence or that there's not enough evidence for GW, but fail to understand that our world is not a static one by nature and changes are bound to happen.
This is why we can't always focus on the details, even if it is overwhelmingly evident to me. What we need to focus on is the question of whether we will accept or deny our obligation to environmental stewardship. If you deny, or claim that your short term freedoms and well-being is all that matters to you, then no argument anyone makes will matter.
If you accept, then you need to face the evidence which compels us to see that we have without a doubt failed in our obligation - the US, and the world. But the US first, because we are supposed to be the most powerful country economically, and we should set the examples.
I hear the necons gagging in the background while they order more troops out to die while protecting our oil, and cutting more social security to pay for it...
Enviromentaly speaking is the US better now, or was it better 30 years ago?
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-13-2007 Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches
Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.
Southeast England has been sinking slowly since the Ice Age and sea levels on the east coast have risen 20 cm since 1900, the Trust said.
in other words, it has NOTHING to do with global warming...
Never heard of the Industrial Revolution eh?
Do you even read the stories you post? Huh?
What part of SINKING SINCE THE ICE AGE didn't you get? It kind of predates the industrial revolution by a whole lot.
The only thing you have to worry about drowning in is your stupidity.
Fact of the matter is, you can ignore the evidence all you want, stick your head in the sand all you want, stick you head as far up the collective neocon bunghole all you want, label treehuggers and joke about "the sky is falling" all you want, but guess what? There's no need to prove anything to you. Thats right. You are already and have always been comfortably denying a moral obligation. There's no point in attempting to convince one whose morality is so corrupt anyway.
The issue is not the greenhouse effect or global warming. It's not pollution or deforestation. It's not the raping of the world's natural resources or the unsustainable abuse of the environment. None of those in particular.
It is the undeniable claim that humans are the stewards of the world they live in as given to them by God. And this stewardship has been completely ignored and even denied.
I know Dave didn't read the article, did you:
The National Trust said it faced a difficult choice between letting the coastline erode naturally and intervening to protect houses or the landscape.
It has opted for a policy of "adaptation" -- working with nature rather than trying to hold the line with stronger sea defenses.
Britain's coast has been evolving for tens of thousands of years, with some landmarks now submerged. Occasionally the process works the other way and the sea retreats, leaving former ports stuck miles inland.
The medieval port of Dunwich in Suffolk, eastern England, now lies under the North Sea, while coastal erosion created the Needles, landmark chalk stacks off the Isle of Wight.
I live on an island, i've watch beaches change greatly over the years, its nothing new, and nothing that man can do.
Well, unless there's substantial new evidence reported for why GW is NOT manmade, there's really nothing thats going to be news to persuade or dissuade me. What you're citing has never been in doubt. There will always be many examples of natural changes which might seem to prove or deny man's impact on the environment to the uninformed. Many try to use those as evidence that there is no evidence or that there's not enough evidence for GW, but fail to understand that our world is not a static one by nature and changes are bound to happen.
This is why we can't always focus on the details, even if it is overwhelmingly evident to me. What we need to focus on is the question of whether we will accept or deny our obligation to environmental stewardship. If you deny, or claim that your short term freedoms and well-being is all that matters to you, then no argument anyone makes will matter.
If you accept, then you need to face the evidence which compels us to see that we have without a doubt failed in our obligation - the US, and the world. But the US first, because we are supposed to be the most powerful country economically, and we should set the examples.
I hear the necons gagging in the background while they order more troops out to die while protecting our oil, and cutting more social security to pay for it...
Enviromentaly speaking is the US better now, or was it better 30 years ago?
Undoubtedly now. This is because as smog stings your eyes as soon as you step outdoors all over the country, or when DDT seeps into your waters and contaminates your crops, thats when you're in fact economically affected. Thats when even the most hardened know they need to act.
If ppl wait till such a tipping point to act on GW, it wilkl be in all likelihood, irreversible.
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-13-2007 Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches
Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.
Southeast England has been sinking slowly since the Ice Age and sea levels on the east coast have risen 20 cm since 1900, the Trust said.
in other words, it has NOTHING to do with global warming...
Never heard of the Industrial Revolution eh?
Do you even read the stories you post? Huh?
What part of SINKING SINCE THE ICE AGE didn't you get? It kind of predates the industrial revolution by a whole lot.
The only thing you have to worry about drowning in is your stupidity.
Fact of the matter is, you can ignore the evidence all you want, stick your head in the sand all you want, stick you head as far up the collective neocon bunghole all you want, label treehuggers and joke about "the sky is falling" all you want, but guess what? There's no need to prove anything to you. Thats right. You are already and have always been comfortably denying a moral obligation. There's no point in attempting to convince one whose morality is so corrupt anyway.
The issue is not the greenhouse effect or global warming. It's not pollution or deforestation. It's not the raping of the world's natural resources or the unsustainable abuse of the environment. None of those in particular.
It is the undeniable claim that humans are the stewards of the world they live in as given to them by God. And this stewardship has been completely ignored and even denied.
I know Dave didn't read the article, did you:
The National Trust said it faced a difficult choice between letting the coastline erode naturally and intervening to protect houses or the landscape.
It has opted for a policy of "adaptation" -- working with nature rather than trying to hold the line with stronger sea defenses.
Britain's coast has been evolving for tens of thousands of years, with some landmarks now submerged. Occasionally the process works the other way and the sea retreats, leaving former ports stuck miles inland.
The medieval port of Dunwich in Suffolk, eastern England, now lies under the North Sea, while coastal erosion created the Needles, landmark chalk stacks off the Isle of Wight.
I live on an island, i've watch beaches change greatly over the years, its nothing new, and nothing that man can do.
Well, unless there's substantial new evidence reported for why GW is NOT manmade, there's really nothing thats going to be news to persuade or dissuade me. What you're citing has never been in doubt. There will always be many examples of natural changes which might seem to prove or deny man's impact on the environment to the uninformed. Many try to use those as evidence that there is no evidence or that there's not enough evidence for GW, but fail to understand that our world is not a static one by nature and changes are bound to happen.
This is why we can't always focus on the details, even if it is overwhelmingly evident to me. What we need to focus on is the question of whether we will accept or deny our obligation to environmental stewardship. If you deny, or claim that your short term freedoms and well-being is all that matters to you, then no argument anyone makes will matter.
If you accept, then you need to face the evidence which compels us to see that we have without a doubt failed in our obligation - the US, and the world. But the US first, because we are supposed to be the most powerful country economically, and we should set the examples.
I hear the necons gagging in the background while they order more troops out to die while protecting our oil, and cutting more social security to pay for it...
Enviromentaly speaking is the US better now, or was it better 30 years ago?
Undoubtedly now. This is because as smog stings your eyes as soon as you step outdoors all over the country, or when DDT seeps into your waters and contaminates your crops, thats when you're in fact economically affected. Thats when even the most hardened know they need to act.
If ppl wait till such a tipping point to act on GW, it wilkl be in all likelihood, irreversible.
Its funny you bring up DDT. It appears it wasn't nearly as dangerous as it was painted to be. It didn't have an affect on birds (in fact there population increased during its use), only caused cancer when give in 1000 x dosages then would be encountered in the wild. Now WHO is actually starting to lift the ban on it, saying its safe to use INDOORS.
Unfortunetly millions have already died due to the ban. Great example of how enviormental alarmist have come through for people.
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-13-2007 Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches
Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.
Southeast England has been sinking slowly since the Ice Age and sea levels on the east coast have risen 20 cm since 1900, the Trust said.
in other words, it has NOTHING to do with global warming...
Never heard of the Industrial Revolution eh?
Do you even read the stories you post? Huh?
What part of SINKING SINCE THE ICE AGE didn't you get? It kind of predates the industrial revolution by a whole lot.
The only thing you have to worry about drowning in is your stupidity.
Fact of the matter is, you can ignore the evidence all you want, stick your head in the sand all you want, stick you head as far up the collective neocon bunghole all you want, label treehuggers and joke about "the sky is falling" all you want, but guess what? There's no need to prove anything to you. Thats right. You are already and have always been comfortably denying a moral obligation. There's no point in attempting to convince one whose morality is so corrupt anyway.
The issue is not the greenhouse effect or global warming. It's not pollution or deforestation. It's not the raping of the world's natural resources or the unsustainable abuse of the environment. None of those in particular.
It is the undeniable claim that humans are the stewards of the world they live in as given to them by God. And this stewardship has been completely ignored and even denied.
I know Dave didn't read the article, did you:
The National Trust said it faced a difficult choice between letting the coastline erode naturally and intervening to protect houses or the landscape.
It has opted for a policy of "adaptation" -- working with nature rather than trying to hold the line with stronger sea defenses.
Britain's coast has been evolving for tens of thousands of years, with some landmarks now submerged. Occasionally the process works the other way and the sea retreats, leaving former ports stuck miles inland.
The medieval port of Dunwich in Suffolk, eastern England, now lies under the North Sea, while coastal erosion created the Needles, landmark chalk stacks off the Isle of Wight.
I live on an island, i've watch beaches change greatly over the years, its nothing new, and nothing that man can do.
Well, unless there's substantial new evidence reported for why GW is NOT manmade, there's really nothing thats going to be news to persuade or dissuade me. What you're citing has never been in doubt. There will always be many examples of natural changes which might seem to prove or deny man's impact on the environment to the uninformed. Many try to use those as evidence that there is no evidence or that there's not enough evidence for GW, but fail to understand that our world is not a static one by nature and changes are bound to happen.
This is why we can't always focus on the details, even if it is overwhelmingly evident to me. What we need to focus on is the question of whether we will accept or deny our obligation to environmental stewardship. If you deny, or claim that your short term freedoms and well-being is all that matters to you, then no argument anyone makes will matter.
If you accept, then you need to face the evidence which compels us to see that we have without a doubt failed in our obligation - the US, and the world. But the US first, because we are supposed to be the most powerful country economically, and we should set the examples.
I hear the necons gagging in the background while they order more troops out to die while protecting our oil, and cutting more social security to pay for it...
Enviromentaly speaking is the US better now, or was it better 30 years ago?
Undoubtedly now. This is because as smog stings your eyes as soon as you step outdoors all over the country, or when DDT seeps into your waters and contaminates your crops, thats when you're in fact economically affected. Thats when even the most hardened know they need to act.
If ppl wait till such a tipping point to act on GW, it wilkl be in all likelihood, irreversible.
Its funny you bring up DDT. It appears it wasn't nearly as dangerous as it was painted to be. It didn't have an affect on birds (in fact there population increased during its use), only caused cancer when give in 1000 x dosages then would be encountered in the wild. Now WHO is actually starting to lift the ban on it, saying its safe to use INDOORS.
Unfortunetly millions have already died due to the ban. Great example of how enviormental alarmist have come through for people.
This is again falling into the trap of arguing specifics and whoever thinks they won thinks they made a point larger than they did. All the people in your cornerhave, predicatably, stayed far away from answering the issue of accountability and stewardship.
But very well. DDT. Another case where you get your facts, or possibly, only presented facts, which are misleading. Intentionally or not.
When birds of prey, at the top of the food chain and endpoint accumulators of these toxins lay eggs with thin shells and crush them, there'll be no baby eagles or ospreys. So guess what happens to songbirds and other migratory birds?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that your sources appear to be very partial... Fox perhaps?
However, the role of DDT in the reduction of Bald Eagle numbers in the United States has been questioned. As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction -- 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the Bald Eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 -- 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.
But by 1960, 20 years after the Bald Eagle Protection Act and at the peak of DDT use, the Audubon Society reported counting 25% more eagles than in its pre-1941 census. U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting Bald Eagle productivity from 51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970, according to the 1970 Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive Bald Eagles for 112 days and concluded that "DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs," according to a 1966 report published in the "Transcripts of 31st North America Wildlife Conference."
A 1970 study published in Pesticides Monitoring Journal reported that DDT residues in bird egg shells were not correlated with thinning. Numerous other feeding studies on caged birds indicate that DDT isn't associated with egg shell thinning.
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-13-2007 Rising seas threaten Britain's best-loved beaches
Some of Britain's best loved beaches and coastline, from Golden Cap in Dorset to Formby Sands in Lancashire, are under threat from erosion and flooding, the National Trust said on Tuesday.
Southeast England has been sinking slowly since the Ice Age and sea levels on the east coast have risen 20 cm since 1900, the Trust said.
in other words, it has NOTHING to do with global warming...
Never heard of the Industrial Revolution eh?
Do you even read the stories you post? Huh?
What part of SINKING SINCE THE ICE AGE didn't you get? It kind of predates the industrial revolution by a whole lot.
The only thing you have to worry about drowning in is your stupidity.
Fact of the matter is, you can ignore the evidence all you want, stick your head in the sand all you want, stick you head as far up the collective neocon bunghole all you want, label treehuggers and joke about "the sky is falling" all you want, but guess what? There's no need to prove anything to you. Thats right. You are already and have always been comfortably denying a moral obligation. There's no point in attempting to convince one whose morality is so corrupt anyway.
The issue is not the greenhouse effect or global warming. It's not pollution or deforestation. It's not the raping of the world's natural resources or the unsustainable abuse of the environment. None of those in particular.
It is the undeniable claim that humans are the stewards of the world they live in as given to them by God. And this stewardship has been completely ignored and even denied.
I know Dave didn't read the article, did you:
The National Trust said it faced a difficult choice between letting the coastline erode naturally and intervening to protect houses or the landscape.
It has opted for a policy of "adaptation" -- working with nature rather than trying to hold the line with stronger sea defenses.
Britain's coast has been evolving for tens of thousands of years, with some landmarks now submerged. Occasionally the process works the other way and the sea retreats, leaving former ports stuck miles inland.
The medieval port of Dunwich in Suffolk, eastern England, now lies under the North Sea, while coastal erosion created the Needles, landmark chalk stacks off the Isle of Wight.
I live on an island, i've watch beaches change greatly over the years, its nothing new, and nothing that man can do.
Well, unless there's substantial new evidence reported for why GW is NOT manmade, there's really nothing thats going to be news to persuade or dissuade me. What you're citing has never been in doubt. There will always be many examples of natural changes which might seem to prove or deny man's impact on the environment to the uninformed. Many try to use those as evidence that there is no evidence or that there's not enough evidence for GW, but fail to understand that our world is not a static one by nature and changes are bound to happen.
This is why we can't always focus on the details, even if it is overwhelmingly evident to me. What we need to focus on is the question of whether we will accept or deny our obligation to environmental stewardship. If you deny, or claim that your short term freedoms and well-being is all that matters to you, then no argument anyone makes will matter.
If you accept, then you need to face the evidence which compels us to see that we have without a doubt failed in our obligation - the US, and the world. But the US first, because we are supposed to be the most powerful country economically, and we should set the examples.
I hear the necons gagging in the background while they order more troops out to die while protecting our oil, and cutting more social security to pay for it...
Enviromentaly speaking is the US better now, or was it better 30 years ago?
Undoubtedly now. This is because as smog stings your eyes as soon as you step outdoors all over the country, or when DDT seeps into your waters and contaminates your crops, thats when you're in fact economically affected. Thats when even the most hardened know they need to act.
If ppl wait till such a tipping point to act on GW, it wilkl be in all likelihood, irreversible.
Its funny you bring up DDT. It appears it wasn't nearly as dangerous as it was painted to be. It didn't have an affect on birds (in fact there population increased during its use), only caused cancer when give in 1000 x dosages then would be encountered in the wild. Now WHO is actually starting to lift the ban on it, saying its safe to use INDOORS.
Unfortunetly millions have already died due to the ban. Great example of how enviormental alarmist have come through for people.
This is again falling into the trap of arguing specifics and whoever thinks they won thinks they made a point larger than they did. All the people in your cornerhave, predicatably, stayed far away from answering the issue of accountability and stewardship.
But very well. DDT. Another case where you get your facts, or possibly, only presented facts, which are misleading. Intentionally or not.
When birds of prey, at the top of the food chain and endpoint accumulators of these toxins lay eggs with thin shells and crush them, there'll be no baby eagles or ospreys. So guess what happens to songbirds and other migratory birds?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that your sources appear to be very partial... Fox perhaps?
link
However, the role of DDT in the reduction of Bald Eagle numbers in the United States has been questioned. As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction -- 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the Bald Eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 -- 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.
But by 1960, 20 years after the Bald Eagle Protection Act and at the peak of DDT use, the Audubon Society reported counting 25% more eagles than in its pre-1941 census. U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting Bald Eagle productivity from 51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970, according to the 1970 Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive Bald Eagles for 112 days and concluded that "DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs," according to a 1966 report published in the "Transcripts of 31st North America Wildlife Conference."
A 1970 study published in Pesticides Monitoring Journal reported that DDT residues in bird egg shells were not correlated with thinning. Numerous other feeding studies on caged birds indicate that DDT isn't associated with egg shell thinning.
DDT and its metabolic products magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptors having a higher concentration of the chemicals than other animals sharing the same environment. In particular, DDT has been cited as a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle in the 1950s and 1960s[29] as well as the peregrine falcon. DDT and its breakdown products are toxic to embryos and can disrupt calcium absorption thereby impairing egg-shell quality.[30] In general, however, DDT in small quantities has very little effect on birds; its primary metabolite, DDE, has a much greater effect.
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Again... no one cares to address my main point because they don't want to deny their obligations outright nor paint themselves into a corner.
A quick scan of wiki shows quite a few conflicting reports, but this seems interesting:
DDT and its metabolic products magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptors having a higher concentration of the chemicals than other animals sharing the same environment. In particular, DDT has been cited as a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle in the 1950s and 1960s[29] as well as the peregrine falcon. DDT and its breakdown products are toxic to embryos and can disrupt calcium absorption thereby impairing egg-shell quality.[30] In general, however, DDT in small quantities has very little effect on birds; its primary metabolite, DDE, has a much greater effect.
Has anyone offered another theory on why the thinning egg shells happen to coincide EXACTLY with the use of DDT and its latency?
Or is it just something we should have ignored because there's not enough evidence for it?
Originally posted by: busmaster11
I think I've killed off three threads about global warming because the opposing side didn't want to answer the charge of stewardship. They always favor nitpicking at little facts here and there that are controvertible and love to ambush you with weird obscure skewed facts taken from sites backed by conservative thinktanks.
Sorry Dave. Gonna have to start a new one - not that I think we'll ever get anywhere with these people...
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Again... no one cares to address my main point because they don't want to deny their obligations outright nor paint themselves into a corner.
A quick scan of wiki shows quite a few conflicting reports, but this seems interesting:
DDT and its metabolic products magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptors having a higher concentration of the chemicals than other animals sharing the same environment. In particular, DDT has been cited as a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle in the 1950s and 1960s[29] as well as the peregrine falcon. DDT and its breakdown products are toxic to embryos and can disrupt calcium absorption thereby impairing egg-shell quality.[30] In general, however, DDT in small quantities has very little effect on birds; its primary metabolite, DDE, has a much greater effect.
Has anyone offered another theory on why the thinning egg shells happen to coincide EXACTLY with the use of DDT and its latency?
Or is it just something we should have ignored because there's not enough evidence for it?
I think I've killed off three threads about global warming because the opposing side didn't want to answer the charge of stewardship. They always favor nitpicking at little facts here and there that are controvertible and love to ambush you with weird obscure skewed facts taken from sites backed by conservative thinktanks.
Sorry Dave. Gonna have to start a new one - not that I think we'll ever get anywhere with these people...
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-20-2007 Australia bans incandescent bulbs
The Australian government on Tuesday announced plans to phase out incandescent light bulbs and replace them with more energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs across the country.
Legislation to gradually restrict the sale of the old-style bulbs could reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tons by 2012 and cut household power bills by up to 66 percent, said Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
Under the Australian plan, bulbs that do not comply with energy efficiency targets would be gradually banned from sale. Exemptions may apply for special needs such as medical lighting and oven lights.
Environmentalists welcomed the light bulb plan, but noted than the vast bulk of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions come from industry, such as coal-fired power stations.
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-20-2007 Australia bans incandescent bulbs
The Australian government on Tuesday announced plans to phase out incandescent light bulbs and replace them with more energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs across the country.
Legislation to gradually restrict the sale of the old-style bulbs could reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tons by 2012 and cut household power bills by up to 66 percent, said Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
Under the Australian plan, bulbs that do not comply with energy efficiency targets would be gradually banned from sale. Exemptions may apply for special needs such as medical lighting and oven lights.
Environmentalists welcomed the light bulb plan, but noted than the vast bulk of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions come from industry, such as coal-fired power stations.
Dave, could you, FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, not completely exaggerate a subject line?
Seriously, it makes you look like an idiot, and is a MAJOR reason why people don't take you seriously around here.
Australia "announcing plans to phase out incandescent light bulbs"
is COMPLETELY different than:
Australia "bans incandescent light bulbs"
Originally posted by: JohnCU
do you know how long we've been around for? the blink of an eye compared to the 4 billion years the earth has been here and i'm quite sure there have been many many MANY cycles in that period and all we have is data from the last couple of hundred years. there are uncountably many variables in the mathematics of climatology. we should reduce pollution as much as possible, that's common sense, but why is it so weird to have a hot age? we had an ice age.
Originally posted by: crownjules
HOLY EPIC QUOTE TREE
You really need to cut out the crap that you're not responding to and make it easier for people to read your posts.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
From Slashdot
Australia Outlaws Incandescent Light Bulb
"The Australian Government is planning on making the incandescent light bulb a thing of the past. In three years time, standard light bulbs will no longer be available for sale in the shops in Australia (expect a roaring grey market) and everybody will be forced to switch to more energy efficient Fluorescent bulbs. In this move to try and curb emissions, the incandescent bulb ? which converts the majority of used energy to heat rather then light ? will be phased out. Environmental groups have given this plan a lukewarm reception. They feel Australia should sign on to the Kyoto protocol first. A similar plan was created together with Phillips, one of the worlds largest lighting manufacturers."