The Effects Our Fetish Has On Climate Change

[KittenAB]

"Sigh," No scientist has ever said that our current climate change is just a natural phenomena. Please refrain from putting words in the mouths of scientists. Thank you.

Wait ... what? o.O

I own a rapidash.

[Diapered Jason]

Wait ... what? o.O

I own a rapidash.

Oops, I was referring to the causes of climate change. I can see why that can be confusing.

Well, I think it is time I hit the old dusty trail.

[KittenAB]

Oops, I was referring to the causes of climate change. I can see why that can be confusing.

Well, I think it is time I hit the old dusty trail.

Many scientists have said it's all natural effects, the problem is what is truly unnatural? As was pointed out time and again, our effect on the environment isn't technically unnatural since we are part of this planet and born of this planet, therefore what we do to it is natural and impossible to avoid. Since matter cannot be destroyed or created, everything we create is also from the planet, and therefore natural as well. However if you ignore all the scientists not being manipulated in some fashion, it sounds like we are some aliens invading a planet that was never ours. One problem with our society is that everyone likes to be an extremist, yet often the answer is somewhere in between the "facts" ... like perhaps it's just that we have become unbalanced due to hover populating world wide? Maybe the "ecofriendly" products are actually causing more harm? The problem is that the peer pressured scientists are often manipulated by the companies owned by politicians who want to make more money off consumers ... thus they scare you into making laws by altering their research to match the findings they want. This poses a much more serious issue because then if they are wrong, we won't know, will we? But here's some solid evidence that none of this "green" stuff is working: The problems are still getting worse.

[babykeiff]

Wait ... what? o.O

I own a rapidash.

what is a rapidash?

[KittenAB]

what is a rapidash?

Look up Pokemon.

[redneck diaper boy]

I see that you have consumed the IPCC Kool Aid.

The IPCC report, Issued to the UN by scientist in Angila, is a fabrication. To the good fortune, of the rest of the world, the climate scientist e-mail acounts got hacked. Now the so-call "climate scientist" are conducting damage control. The liberal Marxist nutballs are telling us it is not what we think it is.

Busting the "climate scientist" is like cataching your old lady in bed with your best friend. The most common exclaimation, in such a situstion is "Wait! This is not what you think it is!". If it is not what I think it is then what the hell is it?

Both cloth and disposable diapers have their places. Both have some eccological impact. Without diapers, there would be human waste everywhere like parks playgrounds public transportation etc. This would be unsanitary!

Put on your thinking cap. Global warming is not man made. If Algore really believed in his own rhetoric, he would not be traveling around the world in a private jet to spread his bullshit. Algore feels better about his own polution becuase he buys "carbon credits" from a company that he owns! Check the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and see what "carbon credits" are trading for now!

Green is the new Swastica! Don't join the Obama Youth!

Hi, Everyone. Like many in recent years I have learned and researched the Global Climate Change that is presently ongoing in our ecosystem, and its causes, of which the main contributor is mankind. I am sure that everyone here knows the environmental facts about diapers, if not here they are; 30% of landfill waste is diapers, 35% of diapers are made from petroleum based chemicals,which do not biodegrade for centuries, and on and on it goes. And to those who see cloth as a "green" alternative, cloth diaper consume over 10,000 gallon of water per year for washing. This is something that should concern all of us deeply as citizens of Earth and contributors to global climate change, WE MUST figure out a way that OUR community can improve our carbon footprint. Thank You, I look forward to all of your thoughts and ideas on this topic. Please do not waste time and dispute climate change or its manmade origins as this is scientific FACT and should not take place under this post, Thank You.

[Diapered Jason]

Many scientists have said it's all natural effects, the problem is what is truly unnatural? As was pointed out time and again, our effect on the environment isn't technically unnatural since we are part of this planet and born of this planet, therefore what we do to it is natural and impossible to avoid. Since matter cannot be destroyed or created, everything we create is also from the planet, and therefore natural as well. However if you ignore all the scientists not being manipulated in some fashion, it sounds like we are some aliens invading a planet that was never ours. One problem with our society is that everyone likes to be an extremist, yet often the answer is somewhere in between the "facts" ... like perhaps it's just that we have become unbalanced due to hover populating world wide? Maybe the "ecofriendly" products are actually causing more harm? The problem is that the peer pressured scientists are often manipulated by the companies owned by politicians who want to make more money off consumers ... thus they scare you into making laws by altering their research to match the findings they want. This poses a much more serious issue because then if they are wrong, we won't know, will we? But here's some solid evidence that none of this "green" stuff is working: The problems are still getting worse.

I partially agree with that statement, though most climate change research is government funded and I think you are a little confused on the definition of natural. The reason everyone sounds like an extremist is because that is what the news reports. The news corporations are for profit and know if they scare you, you will continue watching. In addition, 'green' products are not actually green at all, but more comparable to clean coal in that it is not really clean at all. Granted, we will always need coal for coke to make steel, so I am not saying coal is all bad, but no matter what way you use coal though, it will be dirty not clean. I have known from the get go that the so called 'green' products were a scam. What you really want as a consumer is efficiency, but everyone has always wanted that regardless of what they have been told is 'green'.

[KittenAB]

I partially agree with that statement, though most climate change research is government funded and I think you are a little confused on the definition of natural. The reason everyone sounds like an extremist is because that is what the news reports. The news corporations are for profit and know if they scare you, you will continue watching. In addition, 'green' products are not actually green at all, but more comparable to clean coal in that it is not really clean at all. Granted, we will always need coal for coke to make steel, so I am not saying coal is all bad, but no matter what way you use coal though, it will be dirty not clean. I have known from the get go that the so called 'green' products were a scam. What you really want as a consumer is efficiency, but everyone has always wanted that regardless of what they have been told is 'green'.

You do realise that those in the government own businesses, and they want these businesses to make money ... government funded is the same as saying "bought and owned".

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

There's only two things you need to know:

1. 2010: "Snowpocylpse" and "Snowmegeddon"

2. 2011 2/3 of the US continental landmass wis under a snowpack to the extent that the storms were a result of "positive feedback" meaning that the air that came in off the 40 degree ocean was cooled to below freezing in short order and we had several continent spanning blizzards that even reached the deep South, like Georgia

These are facts Applying the adage "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions", we can figure it out

"Climate Change" is a term that can have many meanings, From what I just mentioned and observed and reasoning from the known to the unknown (the proper process since the known is known and the unknown is not knwon) it would mean the earth is getting cooler

Just how reliable is the science of "global warming"? Well the term was switched to "Climate Change" c2007 whenSan Dieago had a snowfall and New Orleans had a record snowfall. Aside from that. The Climate Change unit at East Anglia claims they no longer have the data because they had to delete it for lack of space. This was a consortium of the UN and other agencies. so they had to be well-funded. Geitting back to the question. One aspect of scientific research is replication, meaning that if I encounter a hypothesis, I may want to repeat the process to see if I get data that leads to the same conclusions. In fact this is usually done. This requires that the original data is still around to look at. In the case of this whole thing. that is not the case, by their own admission so there would be nothing to compare new data with. So the science is 0% reliable Combined with "Climategate", to which this all lends creedence, I think we know the answer

[curiositykilledthecat]

Wait ... what? o.O

I own a rapidash.

Ha ha, I own a Scraggy and he likes to headbut!

[LuvsGurl]

That's a Benjamin Disraeli quote.

Sorry, got it from Mark Twain's autobiography.

The quote has often been attributed to Disraeli, but it has not been found in any of his writings.

[Diapered Jason]

You do realise that those in the government own businesses, and they want these businesses to make money ... government funded is the same as saying "bought and owned".

True, that is sometimes the case, but what is your point?

[KittenAB]

True, that is sometimes the case, but what is your point?

Simple logic:

1. Politician owns a business.

2. Business produces a product no one wants.

3. Politician pushes scientists to declare the product to match current "hot button" (green currently).

4. Politician then takes scientist's endorsement to government agencies (such as FDA or whatever) and then pushes them to endorse laws restricting other products based on these scientific "facts".

5. Politician's company is only supplier in the US and makes a fortune off the people because no other product is considered as "good" for whatever hot button.

[Diapered Jason]

Simple logic:

1. Politician owns a business.

2. Business produces a product no one wants.

3. Politician pushes scientists to declare the product to match current "hot button" (green currently).

4. Politician then takes scientist's endorsement to government agencies (such as FDA or whatever) and then pushes them to endorse laws restricting other products based on these scientific "facts".

5. Politician's company is only supplier in the US and makes a fortune off the people because no other product is considered as "good" for whatever hot button.

I see what you are saying, I thought you were referring to research directly related to climate change, not the research done by companies. I was referring to scientists engaged in research performed at universities and national laboratories. Companies and corporations do not have an interest in studies dealing with climate change or for that matter, the effects of any pollutant they may produce. In fact, they will do all they can to stop this type of research and find a way to make the evidence seem circumstantial when it is actually inculpatory evidence.

Most of the time when I see a 'green' product being advertised though, I usually see a quick flash of fine print which states that the statement is not approved by the FDA or is currently being investigated by the FDA. The Cheerios commercials do the exact same thing in that their ability to help lower cholesterol is probably greatly exaggerated. Of course, the FDA is not flawless either.

[messyman]

This fetish probably reduces the chance of reproduction and children have a huge carbon footprint.

[hidden]

[KittenAB]

I see what you are saying, I thought you were referring to research directly related to climate change, not the research done by companies. I was referring to scientists engaged in research performed at universities and national laboratories. Companies and corporations do not have an interest in studies dealing with climate change or for that matter, the effects of any pollutant they may produce. In fact, they will do all they can to stop this type of research and find a way to make the evidence seem circumstantial when it is actually inculpatory evidence.

Most of the time when I see a 'green' product being advertised though, I usually see a quick flash of fine print which states that the statement is not approved by the FDA or is currently being investigated by the FDA. The Cheerios commercials do the exact same thing in that their ability to help lower cholesterol is probably greatly exaggerated. Of course, the FDA is not flawless either.

Any hot button is of interest ... and if you don't think there are laws made forcing people to buy specific brands of products because of "climate change" reports then you haven't gotten out much. Just because a peer pressured .... sorry, peer "reviewed" scientist says something is so, doesn't make it so, any more than a religious leader saying it as well. When contradictory reports are ridiculed outright and even ignored or buried, there is something wrong. Science thrives only when there is evidence to the contrary, not when everyone agrees.

[sissybabyemily]

All scientists agree because the only people dumb enough at this point to dispute climate change, after decades of research by people lightyears smarter than you or I, are unacademic s like you who hang on to every utterance of talking heads like bill o'rilley or glenn beck. to kitten and the rest of the right wing anti progress anti evolution/climate change/abortion/equalrights/equalpay/healthcare etc, Stop drinking the Kool Aid and think for yourself, you and society will benefit.

Hummm i wonder how many of you will neg respond to this.... lol Its funny, my first post received sooo much outright hate and criticism, you would think that a community like ours would be a little more open minded given what we participate in.

p.s I am not trying to be rude but I believe that everyone should have a personal relationship with mother nature and when ignorance and lack of knowledge leads someone to make some of the absurd responses to this post it really sickens me.

Any hot button is of interest ... and if you don't think there are laws made forcing people to buy specific brands of products because of "climate change" reports then you haven't gotten out much. Just because a peer pressured .... sorry, peer "reviewed" scientist says something is so, doesn't make it so, any more than a religious leader saying it as well. When contradictory reports are ridiculed outright and even ignored or buried, there is something wrong. Science thrives only when there is evidence to the contrary, not when everyone agrees.

[sissybabyemily]

p.p.s http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/20110421/sc_yblog_newsroom/photos-of-endangered-places-around-the-world;_ylt=At2sWzyIVMAupY9osC6p8u5H2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBubW10OGo5BHBvcwMxOQRzZWMDZXAEc2xrA2ltYWdl

[Diapered Jason]

Any hot button is of interest ... and if you don't think there are laws made forcing people to buy specific brands of products because of "climate change" reports then you haven't gotten out much. Just because a peer pressured .... sorry, peer "reviewed" scientist says something is so, doesn't make it so, any more than a religious leader saying it as well. When contradictory reports are ridiculed outright and even ignored or buried, there is something wrong. Science thrives only when there is evidence to the contrary, not when everyone agrees.

Don't blame science when you are talking about politics. Scientists are charged with presenting the facts and do not have control over these laws or what products are considered green. Green is not a technical term, but rather subjective. That type of terminology is never used in the technical fields. Any one who has experience in the scientific and especially engineering fields will tell you it is not ultimately up to them. Obviously, if you are a good manager, you will listen to your engineer, but that will not stop the ad agency for that company from spreading lies about their product if they will see more profits as a result. Scientists and engineers do not under any circumstance determine what is in the commercial.

I know what laws you are referring to. A perfect example would be the new law which bans light sources with efficiencies under 30% in the US effectively eliminating incandescent lighting. Again, this decision was not made by a scientist. Politicians came up with this idea and everyone knows how inefficient they are (Probably less than 30% efficiency). Of course, as a consumer, I want an energy efficient light bulb that lasts as long as possible to reduce costs regardless. Anyone who is logical will ask for the same. We do not need a law to tell us this. Still, I find it very strange that everyone is talking about consumer products as the problem when the real problem, at least when it comes to green house gas emissions, is energy generation. So I ask myself, what the hell are politicians thinking?

[KittenAB]

p.p.s http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/20110421/sc_yblog_newsroom/photos-of-endangered-places-around-the-world;_ylt=At2sWzyIVMAupY9osC6p8u5H2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBubW10OGo5BHBvcwMxOQRzZWMDZXAEc2xrA2ltYWdl

Sorry, but this is lame. First of all, endangered species are part of natural selection, you know, nature. Secondly, climate changes and has been through major changes since the planet existed, what we are seeing now is extremely mild compared to a few thousand years ago, a few million years ago it was so drastic we probably wouldn't have survived as a species, and the trend is still mellowing out in spite of the ignorant extremists who want to tell everyone else how to live yet won't give up all the modern conveniences themselves. So of course they can't say there is no climate change, I never did say that, just that our impact is pretty much null, period. Many scientists have disagreed with the findings of the peer pressured sources you seem to follow like a religious zealot, and most get shunned, banished, or completely ignored by the media, government, and idiots like you. If want a planet with no climate change go to Pluto (I know, officially not a planet) ... as for endangered species, one of my favourite large cats is endangered because their prey is now capable of avoiding them, sad, but you know what? That's the way nature works, that's the only reason we exist and dinosaurs do not.

[sissybabyemily]

HEY Kitten. If you think I am all BS why don't you post an article and research that support your claims. If I had no life I would spend all day posting articles on this site about the effects of climate change, unfortunately that is not the case as I spend my time researching as I advance my degree.

[KittenAB]

HEY Kitten. If you think I am all BS why don't you post an article and research that support your claims. If I had no life I would spend all day posting articles on this site about the effects of climate change, unfortunately that is not the case as I spend my time researching as I advance my degree.

Really? You know how futile that would be since anything that disagrees with your point of view you will just outright deny, rationalising by saying "this person is not part of the peer pressured list" .... seriously, a degree doesn't grant you intellect nor is it a sign you have any knowledge of what you are talking about, it's just a sign that you have accepted the status quo.

[Diapered Jason]

Sorry, but this is lame. First of all, endangered species are part of natural selection, you know, nature. Secondly, climate changes and has been through major changes since the planet existed, what we are seeing now is extremely mild compared to a few thousand years ago, a few million years ago it was so drastic we probably wouldn't have survived as a species, and the trend is still mellowing out in spite of the ignorant extremists who want to tell everyone else how to live yet won't give up all the modern conveniences themselves. So of course they can't say there is no climate change, I never did say that, just that our impact is pretty much null, period. Many scientists have disagreed with the findings of the peer pressured sources you seem to follow like a religious zealot, and most get shunned, banished, or completely ignored by the media, government, and idiots like you. If want a planet with no climate change go to Pluto (I know, officially not a planet) ... as for endangered species, one of my favourite large cats is endangered because their prey is now capable of avoiding them, sad, but you know what? That's the way nature works, that's the only reason we exist and dinosaurs do not.

Pluto undergoes drastic world average temperature changes just through one rotation around the sun due to significant changes in its radial distance from the sun. You probably know that Pluto is sometimes closer to the sun than Neptune. Of course, one rotation around the sun for Pluto is about 248 "Earth" years. It is a good thing that is not the case with Earth.

I can tell you have never read a research publication. These publications are very detailed and use only objectiveness in writing. They usually contain an abstract, introduction, procedure, results and discussion, conclusions, acknowledgments, and lastly references. There is nothing subjective about them. I ask you, who is the ignorant extremist? A question made with your words, not mine.

[KittenAB]

Pluto undergoes drastic climate changes just through one rotation around the sun due to significant changes in its radial distance from the sun. You probably know that Pluto is sometimes closer to the sun than Neptune. Of course, one rotation around the sun for Pluto is about 248 "Earth" years. It is a good thing that is not the case with Earth.

I can tell you have never read a research publication. These publications are very detailed and use only objectiveness in writing. There is nothing subjective about them. I ask you, who is the ignorant extremist? A question made with your words, not mine.

Nothing subjective? LOL ... and no I did not know about that Pluto thing but meh, point still stands. The reports of the human influence in climate and ecosystem change are very subjective, otherwise the "accepted" ones would not all say the same thing, and those saying something different would not be shunned just for disagreeing. All this started because of some idiot who found a way to make money off the fools who want to blame people for something stupid, which happens a lot just this time it's gotten way out of hand. If you take all the land fill space used in the US and lumped it together it would be no larger than one city ... look for Time Magazine's issue, Monday, June 4th, 1974 .... the same carbon emissions that were being blamed for an ice age back then are what they are blaming for global warming now.

The problem isn't the crying wolf either, if you think there's a problem then YOU change your lifestyle, don't make others change theirs while doing the things you claim are worst. Do you drive? If so then you are far more guilty than I am of "damage" ....

If you want to give Al Gore your money, fine, don't make us do it. If you think you aren't, then you really need to look deeper. Manbearpig is not real either, by the way.