My PC sucks more power than all the lights on in the house last night while I was not participating. (Not many) Besides, we had a massive power outage a couple of weeks ago that lasted well beyond an hour...



I'd rather have Solar Power Satellites.

Climate change is a political issue, and gesture is the language of politics. The only way to truly tackle climate change is an international regime to put a cap and a price on climate pollution. The only way this will happen is if politicans become convinced that climate change is an issue that matters to people. Earth Hour is an organised international demonstration that climate change is an issue that will change the way people live, buy, and most importantly vote.
It's more than just waving plackards and shouting slogans, because this is a demonstration that was remarkably easy for everyone to participate with an actual quantifiable effect of it.

Why are there only assassins for nice people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King? Where are the crazies-with-sniper-rifles for oil company owners and war mongers? Talk about world gestures.

because damn those dudes caused hassle

To be honest, I have a hard time believing that the poles melting away would actually be the death of civilization that it seems to be made out to be...

Also if it's a man made cause I think it may be too late to help the poles and if it's not, welp. So I guess I can maybe look forward to a beach that's less than a hundred miles away...worst case scenario the water rises too much and I have to move too...

Someone help me out here...

Edit:



Because assassins cost money and hippies don't have any and/or enough that an assassin couldn't make more by killing hippies for oil company owners and war mongers.

i havent eaten in 2 days anyway, i'm going back to bed. lights are off

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Wow. Can you really be that short sighted? The problem isn't "o noez teh waturz r rizin! Move 100 miles away." Change in the average sea level could change atmospheric pressure, causing radically different wind speeds and weather patterns. A change in the water level would change average sea temperatures, which would enhance all of the above effects, as well as changing the living conditions for sea life, potentially destroying acceptable habitats for species and leading to mass sealife extinction. There are even theories that say it could alter tectonic plate movements, which would cause earthquakes and increased volcanic activity.

I'm not saying all of these will happen, and certainly not within the next 5 years, or maybe even 10, or 30, or 50. But do you really want your apathy to potentially cause any of that? When all you had to do was help to invest in alternative energies and try to help decrease pollution?

I certainly don't see the harm in helping. It's not like humans don't have the time to waste.

Some ****** took care of this for me. Someone turned off our main circuit breaker last night. Freaked the **** out of me. I ended up calling PD because I thought it was a B&E. Upon further inspection this morning, I'm of the opinion that someone just might have been trying to break in.

First, I think funding nuclear power plants would be the way to go over the solar project you suggested. Nuclear seems to work well for the French. If America ever really got behind solar the enviro-crazies would be all over the terrible panels all over the place.

Hell, now I don't even feel like addressing your radical statement in the quote above.

We did it in Tel Aviv, there was a city-sponsored rock concert that ran on pedal power (= a totally unnecessary use of power). whatever

... you're retarded. Your argument is EXACTLY backwards. Nuclear waste is impossible to dispose of short of tossing it at the sun, which is just as expensive. So instead they store it in gigantic containment facilities. I think the "enviro-crazies" as you put it, would be all over THAT before they cared about solar panel polution.

You are so backwards it hurts.

*Ahem* Breeder reactors.

While Nuclear fairly obviously isn't a long-term solution to anything, the waste-to-energy ratio is tiny and it would be a very sensible option for the immediate future to allow the alternate technologies to mature. Of course there's a delicate economic balancing act as to how much money to spend on new nuclear plants, and how much to spend on research for alternate technologies. Those are the sorts of questions we ought to be addressing right now (or rather, 30 years ago when scientists first discovered climate change was a problem. unbelievably, there's still people that refuse the reality. usually ****ing libertarians that live in a daydream)

there's also the next generation of american kids, who have been weaned on "man bear pig" and oil company-sponsored studies. massassi's got a relatively high average age, but on large forums where it's around 15-16, their politics are pretty appalling

from what I can see there's a pretty severe backlash going on

Well, you can't blame some people. The tactics of the environmental crowd aren't exactly sound. First it came out of an unpopular subculture, then it was backed by fear mongering, and then it became a popular sales pitch. No one has come out with reasonable, logical, pointed methods to use more proficient technologies. It's polarizing, forcing people into the gung-ho global warming/the world is ending camp, or the I don't see what the big deal is, the earth is always changing camp.

It's pretty difficult to ride in the middle on the issue because of the extremism. We need less talk about "conservation" and more talk about "efficiency." Efficient politics would make new technologies necessary NOT because they're "clean" but because they're economical, and unlimited, and have no affect on our future in any way shape or form. Instead it's all about the "green." Cultural movements are tacky and empty.

combine these for political amazement

The Earth has endured WAY more than what we're currently ****ing up. The Earth will survive whether we go extinct (or massive drop in population) or not. We're just destroying ourselves. Something that I'm not that opposed to.

But what is a cultural movement? A bunch of people motivated to the same course of action. How is that empty? The whole "green" thing is an attempt to use tried and true methods that have motivated past action. The main reason the issue is polarizing is that we have two parties and it has become a political issue. Really there are a wide range of views on how to solve the problem.

You seem to think that "conservation" is somehow a radical concept. It's not. Conservation is about moderation. We talk about it because it's the root of the problem. If we don't conserve, we can make any resource effectively non-renewable. You speak of promoting "efficiency," but so do the people who raise awareness about environmental issues (if you're talking about energy efficiency; if you're not, I have no idea what you're talking about). The efficiency argument only has appeal when energy is scarce. Sure, we've got high gas prices, but in general people don't care. In the 70's when gas prices shot up, they made really fuel-efficient cars. Later those cars disappeared. So it goes. This talk about conservation and all things "green" is an attempt to get people to actually care about the underlying issues. And yes, there are plenty of people coming up with better technologies.

This post was going to be more intelligent, but I'm really tired right now and can't think straight.

TL;DR: Your post makes a lot of bad generalizations and splits hairs that needn't be split.

Nice people my ***. History remembers them as being the good guys because they were the underdogs and they got results. MLK was a womanizing plagiarist. Ghandi was a hypernationalist racist who used the threat of suicide to whip up his followers into a bloodthirsty mob. Mother Theresa has killed more people than she ever saved by educating them about the evils of condoms.

Bill Gates is the largest sole philanthropist in human history. The Rockefellers didn't do too bad on that front, either. Where are the accolades for J. Edgar Hoover killing that ******* Kennedy? History has no sense of justice.

CarpKing, I'm only explaining why some people, particularly more conservative people (haha) have been rubbed the wrong way by the green movement. I was explaining where it's come from, and how it doesn't fundamentally sit well with some people's judgement. I'm not even disagreeing with the concept of conservation, but instead criticizing it as an argument. America lives on the notion of consumption and freedom to consume. You aren't going to change that because it's not a culture, but instead a modern notion. A much more effective argument would be "Consume as much as you flexoring want, we made a renewable energy source that will fuel any sized car you can think of." You'd get a lot more backing from people that matter.

I am. I don't wanna get destroyed!

Considering that it's not you and me and the rest of the people on this board that are going to suffer, but the millions of people living below the poverty line who are already attempting to survive through longer droughts, heavier rainfall, food shortages, changing migration of disease (need I go on?), that is an incredibly callous thing to say. Actually, it's a ****ing sickening thing to say.

I am actually of the belief that we have seriously overpopulated the planet and something needs to be done about it, but allowing the poorest people in the world (who have caused the smallest amount of damage) to suffer so that we can drive around in ****ing range rovers is not the answer, it's just disgusting.

Both of those guys started companies that eventually had a tarnished name to them. So them becoming philanthropists seems to many as a "look I'm not an evil businessman! See!" However, not many people know that Ghandi, and MLK were uncouth people. In fact, if you point out that MLK was a plagerist and womanizer, you are condemned as racist.

It's fun to pick on the wealthy white man but you're in for some hurtin' if you pick on the poor black/Indian/whatever (wo)man.

J. Edgar Hoover killing Kennedy? :raise:

exactly!
"what? i have to do blah blah blah at that time so i can't turn off my lights."
"i turn off my lights 10 hours a day so i already make a difference."
**** off! never mind the global warming, get off of your cushy convenient ****ing asses and realize that just saving a bit of polution is a nice thing to do.
**** global warming and the end of civilization as we might know it! just quit ****ing poluting more than you need to just to pamper your ****ing *** you near sighted ****s!

How could I possibly resist when your argument is so compelling.