noliquidity Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 (edited) Edited October 17, 2007 by noliquidity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 the leader of the movement (gore) is not leading by example.  if it is the biggest issue we have to face and worthy of preventing great world wars that the nobel people have claimed. then gore would be doing more.  so he buys carbon offsets. brings his contribution to zero. imagine the contribution he could be making if he bought offsets AND lived a more humble lifestyle? if every little bit counts, it should count for gore also  it should also count for all the climbers too (as just another example) you make yourselves feel better by admitting that you are guilty and that you try to do these other things to make a difference. yet it is still more important to drive 3+ hours to go climb...while you buy backpacks, gear, food etc etc etc...all that gear has plenty of impact in its manufacturing, shipping, waste etc.  if EVERY bit counted... the tree hugger climbers would be doing all the little things - and also sacrificing all the little things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noliquidity Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 What a load of shit.  Remember the 3 Ds of Opposition chuck Disformation, Deny, Delay   + Distract, Divide, Discredit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 democrats, dipshits, dumbasses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Yes, sadly "creating a commission" (or blue-ribbon panel of industry experts), is usually as big a lie as "the check's in the mail". Â But also sadly, it's amazing that we haven't even come to the delay stage on this one yet. We're still in the deny and distort phase. I think that's gonna change pretty soon though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 the leader of the movement (gore) is not leading by example. if it is the biggest issue we have to face and worthy of preventing great world wars that the nobel people have claimed. then gore would be doing more.  so he buys carbon offsets. brings his contribution to zero. imagine the contribution he could be making if he bought offsets AND lived a more humble lifestyle? if every little bit counts, it should count for gore also  it should also count for all the climbers too (as just another example) you make yourselves feel better by admitting that you are guilty and that you try to do these other things to make a difference. yet it is still more important to drive 3+ hours to go climb...while you buy backpacks, gear, food etc etc etc...all that gear has plenty of impact in its manufacturing, shipping, waste etc.  if EVERY bit counted... the tree hugger climbers would be doing all the little things - and also sacrificing all the little things.  Not quite.  Some acts might have more impact, and some less. It's a matter of looking at the impact in the aggregate.  And cutting back, might not mean cutting out completely. For example, I might climb at Snoqualmie Pass more and Washington Pass less. I might buy replacement gear less often, rather than not at all, and buy used more often or rent/borrow more (although the latter might involve driving to pick up and drop off...).     Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 Yes, sadly "creating a commission" (or blue-ribbon panel of industry experts), is usually as big a lie as "the check's in the mail". Â But also sadly, it's amazing that we haven't even come to the delay stage on this one yet. We're still in the deny and distort phase. I think that's gonna change pretty soon though. Â People don't like change. Deal with it. Instead of attacking, lead. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 the leader of the movement (gore) is not leading by example. if it is the biggest issue we have to face and worthy of preventing great world wars that the nobel people have claimed. then gore would be doing more.  so he buys carbon offsets. brings his contribution to zero. imagine the contribution he could be making if he bought offsets AND lived a more humble lifestyle? if every little bit counts, it should count for gore also  it should also count for all the climbers too (as just another example) you make yourselves feel better by admitting that you are guilty and that you try to do these other things to make a difference. yet it is still more important to drive 3+ hours to go climb...while you buy backpacks, gear, food etc etc etc...all that gear has plenty of impact in its manufacturing, shipping, waste etc.  if EVERY bit counted... the tree hugger climbers would be doing all the little things - and also sacrificing all the little things.  Not quite.  Some acts might have more impact, and some less. It's a matter of looking at the impact in the aggregate.  And cutting back, might not mean cutting out completely. For example, I might climb at Snoqualmie Pass more and Washington Pass less. I might buy replacement gear less often, rather than not at all, and buy used more often or rent/borrow more (although the latter might involve driving to pick up and drop off...).     my point is that if EVERY bit counts... then exactly that. EVERY BIT. climbing at snoqualmie has impact...you can take that impact away by not going.  unless it isn't that much of a dire situation. global warming, that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Underworld, Your argument that we need to do every bit possible basically leads to the conclusion that we can't satisfy your demands until we all kill ourselves (and take as many with as possible). Â It would be a good idea to minimize our impact for global warming issues as well as lots of others (pollution, dependence, etc.), but I think you would agree that don't have to go as far as obliterating our methane producing bodies from the planet. Â There is some reasonable middle ground. From the data that's out there now (as I understand it) we are not at that middle ground (sustainability). Until we have a target for what we really need to do, it seems reasonable to preach conservation. It also seems reasonable to try to light a fire under leadership's ass in terms of agreeing there is a problem to work on and to allot resources towards working on it, instead of making shit up and distorting the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 the leader of the movement (gore) is not leading by example. if it is the biggest issue we have to face and worthy of preventing great world wars that the nobel people have claimed. then gore would be doing more.  so he buys carbon offsets. brings his contribution to zero. imagine the contribution he could be making if he bought offsets AND lived a more humble lifestyle? if every little bit counts, it should count for gore also  it should also count for all the climbers too (as just another example) you make yourselves feel better by admitting that you are guilty and that you try to do these other things to make a difference. yet it is still more important to drive 3+ hours to go climb...while you buy backpacks, gear, food etc etc etc...all that gear has plenty of impact in its manufacturing, shipping, waste etc.  if EVERY bit counted... the tree hugger climbers would be doing all the little things - and also sacrificing all the little things.  Not quite.  Some acts might have more impact, and some less. It's a matter of looking at the impact in the aggregate.  And cutting back, might not mean cutting out completely. For example, I might climb at Snoqualmie Pass more and Washington Pass less. I might buy replacement gear less often, rather than not at all, and buy used more often or rent/borrow more (although the latter might involve driving to pick up and drop off...).     my point is that if EVERY bit counts... then exactly that. EVERY BIT. climbing at snoqualmie has impact...you can take that impact away by not going.  unless it isn't that much of a dire situation. global warming, that is.  it's not all or nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 i'd just like to hear one global warming alamist admit that there is a POSSIBILITY that gore et al could be distorting things as well. it doesn't mean you have to throw out what they are saying. but give a little constructive skeptism to what we hear. Â i'm not what you'd call an alarmist (duh) and i admit that those that deny the global warming can and do distort things (too)... Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 the leader of the movement (gore) is not leading by example. if it is the biggest issue we have to face and worthy of preventing great world wars that the nobel people have claimed. then gore would be doing more.  so he buys carbon offsets. brings his contribution to zero. imagine the contribution he could be making if he bought offsets AND lived a more humble lifestyle? if every little bit counts, it should count for gore also  it should also count for all the climbers too (as just another example) you make yourselves feel better by admitting that you are guilty and that you try to do these other things to make a difference. yet it is still more important to drive 3+ hours to go climb...while you buy backpacks, gear, food etc etc etc...all that gear has plenty of impact in its manufacturing, shipping, waste etc.  if EVERY bit counted... the tree hugger climbers would be doing all the little things - and also sacrificing all the little things.  Not quite.  Some acts might have more impact, and some less. It's a matter of looking at the impact in the aggregate.  And cutting back, might not mean cutting out completely. For example, I might climb at Snoqualmie Pass more and Washington Pass less. I might buy replacement gear less often, rather than not at all, and buy used more often or rent/borrow more (although the latter might involve driving to pick up and drop off...).     my point is that if EVERY bit counts... then exactly that. EVERY BIT. climbing at snoqualmie has impact...you can take that impact away by not going.  unless it isn't that much of a dire situation. global warming, that is.  it's not all or nothing  i agree....  the alarmist seem to think it is tho. IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 Underworld, Your argument that we need to do every bit possible basically leads to the conclusion that we can't satisfy your demands until we all kill ourselves (and take as many with as possible). Â It would be a good idea to minimize our impact for global warming issues as well as lots of others (pollution, dependence, etc.), but I think you would agree that don't have to go as far as obliterating our methane producing bodies from the planet. Â There is some reasonable middle ground. From the data that's out there now (as I understand it) we are not at that middle ground (sustainability). Until we have a target for what we really need to do, it seems reasonable to preach conservation. It also seems reasonable to try to light a fire under leadership's ass in terms of agreeing there is a problem to work on and to allot resources towards working on it, instead of making shit up and distorting the issue. Â Americans WASTE. There are easy ways to make a difference with little personal change. Â For example, plan you excursions. If you have to drop the kids at a soccer game AND go for groceries, combine them into one trip minimizing distance travelled rather than doing two round-trips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Underworld, Your argument that we need to do every bit possible basically leads to the conclusion that we can't satisfy your demands until we all kill ourselves (and take as many with as possible). Â It would be a good idea to minimize our impact for global warming issues as well as lots of others (pollution, dependence, etc.), but I think you would agree that don't have to go as far as obliterating our methane producing bodies from the planet. Â There is some reasonable middle ground. From the data that's out there now (as I understand it) we are not at that middle ground (sustainability). Until we have a target for what we really need to do, it seems reasonable to preach conservation. It also seems reasonable to try to light a fire under leadership's ass in terms of agreeing there is a problem to work on and to allot resources towards working on it, instead of making shit up and distorting the issue. Â To that point, I don't recall seeing many vehicles at Rope-up that would get better than 30mpg, or really 25mpg for that matter (outbacks included) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Yeah, and ban all bean exports to China! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 Yeah, and ban all bean exports to China! Â what about our appetite for all types of fresh produce all year? perhaps people should think about foregoing kiwis in December? OK, first I'd like to see the cost of shipping that stuff (in terms of CO2 footprint) to see if it merits the sacrifice, but you get my point? Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 my point is that if EVERY bit counts... then exactly that. EVERY BIT. climbing at snoqualmie has impact...you can take that impact away by not going. Â unless it isn't that much of a dire situation. global warming, that is. Â Â So you'd like to see some Communistic solution to global warming where every person is treated exactly equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 To that point, I don't recall seeing many vehicles at Rope-up that would get better than 30mpg, or really 25mpg for that matter (outbacks included) Â Gosh thanks for that info. Did you get any farting data? Â Why do you hate cc.com? (and America) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 my point is that if EVERY bit counts... then exactly that. EVERY BIT. climbing at snoqualmie has impact...you can take that impact away by not going.  unless it isn't that much of a dire situation. global warming, that is.   So you'd like to see some Communistic solution to global warming where every person is treated exactly equal.  Wait a minute, buddy. The communist slogan is not "equal amounts for everyone"! It is:  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need  And Al Gore follows that to a tee - he "needs more". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octopuswithafez Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 To that point, I don't recall seeing many vehicles at Rope-up that would get better than 30mpg, or really 25mpg for that matter (outbacks included) Â Gosh thanks for that info. Did you get any farting data? Â Why do you hate cc.com? (and America) Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 counts... then exactly that. EVERY BIT. climbing at snoqualmie has impact...you can take that impact away by not going. Â you could have done your part by not buying a computer.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 counts... then exactly that. EVERY BIT. climbing at snoqualmie has impact...you can take that impact away by not going. Â you could have done your part by not buying a computer.... Â speaking of computers, simply powering down when not in use saves electricity and reduces your carbon footprint. how many folks out there do you think leave their computers on continuously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 For their next trick the conservatives on this board will now refute the silly ideas expressed by scientists about gravity. Furthermore Isaac Newton and Einstein those guys were full of shit too. Â Kepler and Newton's concepts of motion and gravity are now known as LAWS. Are you proposing to give anthropogenic global warming the same stature? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 counts... then exactly that. EVERY BIT. climbing at snoqualmie has impact...you can take that impact away by not going. Â you could have done your part by not buying a computer.... Â speaking of computers, simply powering down when not in use saves electricity and reduces your carbon footprint. how many folks out there do you think leave their computers on continuously? Â I would think every big company out there leaves them on, updates usually run at night and computer has to be on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 counts... then exactly that. EVERY BIT. climbing at snoqualmie has impact...you can take that impact away by not going. Â you could have done your part by not buying a computer.... Â speaking of computers, simply powering down when not in use saves electricity and reduces your carbon footprint. how many folks out there do you think leave their computers on continuously? Â I would think every big company out there leaves them on, updates usually run at night and computer has to be on. Â Â we already know that big companies are evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.