Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Trees cause global warming


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 BigBrother

BigBrother

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 524 posts
  • Location:36° 12' N 95° 54' W

Posted 06 September 2007 - 10:54 PM

http://ecostreet.com...global-warming/

#2 KnowShtuff

KnowShtuff

    elite

  • Members
  • 113 posts

Posted 07 September 2007 - 05:28 AM

Too little time to "go there" for now. Good post and good username, though. B) ;)

#3 gloomer

gloomer

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 588 posts

Posted 07 September 2007 - 11:04 AM

OH NO! I guess the logging companies have an excuse to chop down 3 times as much as they already are.

But... they're saving the planet! YAY!..

WTF.

Stay away from our trees Fox News!

We've survived for thousands of years with 10x the amount of trees we have.

I don't think there's a big issue.

#4 WhatChout

WhatChout

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 814 posts

Posted 07 September 2007 - 01:18 PM

Because there isn't. If CO2 really had such a dramatic effect on climate (and it doesn't), we still wouldn't be able to produce a fraction of the CO2 produced by nature.

#5 KnowShtuff

KnowShtuff

    elite

  • Members
  • 113 posts

Posted 07 September 2007 - 03:00 PM

Biodiversity. Beware of fuckers trying to kill plants/trees, animals AND PEOPLE (depopulation, eugenics) because "CO2 will kill the planet".

Edited by KnowShtuff, 07 September 2007 - 03:01 PM.


#6 xGERMx

xGERMx

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 459 posts

Posted 07 September 2007 - 03:58 PM

Stay away from our trees Fox News!

We've survived for thousands of years with 10x the amount of trees we have.


Actually, there are more trees now than there were in the 1800's.

Watch Penn and Tell's Bullshit Episode about Recycling/Environmentalism.

Trees are a renewable resource!

#7 Dejected Deity

Dejected Deity

    elite

  • Members
  • 112 posts

Posted 08 September 2007 - 12:02 PM

-56 degrees
to
-46 degrees

= drop in temperature?

Good one, Fox.

#8 theMaxx

theMaxx

    mad 1337

  • Members
  • 135 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 09 September 2007 - 10:56 PM

As far as I can tell, there's only one reason to protect trees: to protect the ecosystems they are a part of (and perhaps to later harvest them for schmoking).

#9 Colonel Panic

Colonel Panic

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 607 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:IN YR BROWSER, SAYIN SUM SHIT

Posted 10 September 2007 - 04:04 AM

Fucking idiots.

#10 theMaxx

theMaxx

    mad 1337

  • Members
  • 135 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 10 September 2007 - 10:29 AM

Idiots and jews.

Fuck 'em all.

Get $$.

#11 Colonel Panic

Colonel Panic

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 607 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:IN YR BROWSER, SAYIN SUM SHIT

Posted 10 September 2007 - 01:59 PM

Rupert Murdoch has done more than any other man alive to lower the standards of journalistic integrity. But he couldn't have done as much in any other country but the good ol' US of A.

#12 Perf-149

Perf-149

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 502 posts
  • Location:Location is key!

Posted 10 September 2007 - 02:37 PM

Trees are a renewable resource!


Have you ever been to an area that has been logged away? The trees may be renewable, bu the ecosystems that are destroyed and the animals that are displaced cannot be replaced.

#13 KnowShtuff

KnowShtuff

    elite

  • Members
  • 113 posts

Posted 10 September 2007 - 03:20 PM

Trees are a renewable resource!


Have you ever been to an area that has been logged away?


Yes.

The trees may be renewable,


They are.

bu the ecosystems that are destroyed and the animals that are displaced cannot be replaced.


It's not a pretty sight. Animals, insects even, are displaced.... just like when our homes were built. Deer, birds of all sorts, insects of all sorts, possum, racoons, squirrels, chipmunks, snakes, frogs, and more creatures that were displaced by the building of my home make their way into my yard (and sometimes attempt to make their way into my house) nearly every day; and a vacant post-logged area is more welcoming than a housed area. Your irreplaceable animals claim, as stated, is bunk.

You need to do a lot more to an ecosystem than log it in order to destroy it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are BEAUTIFUL places today with a prosperous ecosystem. Just in case you are forgetting, the USA "destroyed" the area with Atomic Bombs. Your irreplaceable ecosystem claim, as stated, is bunk.

#14 KnowShtuff

KnowShtuff

    elite

  • Members
  • 113 posts

Posted 10 September 2007 - 03:25 PM

Rupert Murdoch has done more than any other man alive to lower the standards of journalistic integrity. But he couldn't have done as much in any other country but the good ol' US of A.


I agree with the essence of the point you make - Rupert Murdoch's operations are generally good examples of poor journalism and excellent political hackery. He seems to have the worst impact on the USA. But, this is not a statistical fact. Worse, his operations don't work by his work alone. Worse, he has equally pathetic competition.

#15 Colonel Panic

Colonel Panic

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 607 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:IN YR BROWSER, SAYIN SUM SHIT

Posted 10 September 2007 - 07:56 PM

bu the ecosystems that are destroyed and the animals that are displaced cannot be replaced.


It's not a pretty sight. Animals, insects even, are displaced.... just like when our homes were built. Deer, birds of all sorts, insects of all sorts, possum, racoons, squirrels, chipmunks, snakes, frogs, and more creatures that were displaced by the building of my home make their way into my yard (and sometimes attempt to make their way into my house) nearly every day; and a vacant post-logged area is more welcoming than a housed area. Your irreplaceable animals claim, as stated, is bunk.

You need to do a lot more to an ecosystem than log it in order to destroy it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are BEAUTIFUL places today with a prosperous ecosystem. Just in case you are forgetting, the USA "destroyed" the area with Atomic Bombs. Your irreplaceable ecosystem claim, as stated, is bunk.

A man-made forest of young trees of select species, planted for the purpose of maintaining a "renewable resource" of lumber is not a suitable replacement for old-growth forests. Once such a habitat is logged, recovery can take decades or even centuries to return to its previous state of biodiversity, if ever. Some species just can't recover, and that changes the ecology of the area forever.

I'm sure that the politics of living in a community that derives a portion of its economy from the timber trade has colored your judgment, so I'll refrain from considering you an all-out drooling retard. But your quaint anecdote of charming woodlands creatures hanging out on your property is not evidence of a lack of serious environmental impact. In fact, I find it to be rather insulting.

#16 KnowShtuff

KnowShtuff

    elite

  • Members
  • 113 posts

Posted 10 September 2007 - 09:06 PM

EDIT: quoting your post, for integrity.

A man-made forest of young trees of select species, planted for the purpose of maintaining a "renewable resource" of lumber is not a suitable replacement for old-growth forests. Once such a habitat is logged, recovery can take decades or even centuries to return to its previous state of biodiversity, if ever. Some species just can't recover, and that changes the ecology of the area forever.

I'm sure that the politics of living in a community that derives a portion of its economy from the timber trade has colored your judgment, so I'll refrain from considering you an all-out drooling retard. But your quaint anecdote of charming woodlands creatures hanging out on your property is not evidence of a lack of serious environmental impact. In fact, I find it to be rather insulting.


I have no political party affiliation. I have never consciously let my knowledge or lack of knowledge of my social, geographic, economic or political environment, nor the many that I am aware of that may be outside of the norms that I inherently function in, deter me from individual thinking.

To be more precise in reply to your timber-community-comment, I know little to nothing about the timber economy in the entire world and even less about the timber economy in the community that I frequent. And, as previous statements should make clear, even if I did it would not effect the specific replies that I made nor would it effect any replies to a more in depth conversation of the dynamics of the issue beyond acknowledgeing the role of the timber industry rather than drawing biased conclusions based on said role.

The only things from your last post that you can be sure of is that you were so asininely arrogant to be so sure of what is actually your incorrect assumption and you closed it with childish ad hominem attacks about what you feel would be a lack of intelligence on my part based on your error of assuming that, and addressing me as if, I was making points that I was not making for reasons that I was not reasoning about.

I never even started to precisely argue the degree of environmental impact nor did I deny the existance of any. I simply replied to two posts that made blanket statements that people you might refer to as "all-out drooling retards" would assume to be statistical fact when in reality they are nothing more than erroneous blanket conclusions of polemic hyperbole based on more dynamic truths left unexplained.

To break it down more for you, I guess I'll just have to repeat myself. Wait, if I have to repeat myself for you to understand and not be an ass about it ... then could that mean that you are the actual "all-out drooling retard" that you erroneously speculate that I am or the "socially influenced" person that you erroneously speculate I am if not the forementioned? Or could it be that you got so excited about a chance of being a smug intellectual that you spent more time crafting your smart ass remarks then reading my post with practical, unbiased logic hence protraying yourself as nothing more than a polemic pseudo intellectual when that may actually not be your true norm?

I'll repeat with rephrasing and a bit of expounding. The used words that I replied to, being "destroyed" and "cannot be replaced", are factually incorrect statements. In order for them to actually be correct, "destroyed" would have to be replaced with "changed" followed by any accurate explanations of the dynamic change and "cannot be replaced" would have to be modified in some manner to acknowledge that the ecosystem has only displaced animals and changed in a manner that does not in fact make it true that said animals "cannot be replaced" but does in fact make some dynamic changes of animal habitat likely - even though you'd have to continue with the dynamics of adaptations, individuality, how the ecosystem is handled after said logging, in what climate conditions, elevations, and more.

That reply, to Perf-149's use of words, was posted in the same premise that my reply to your statement about Rupert Murdoch was. The premise of accuracy, truth, statistics, logic etc for maintaining the integrity of conversation. I barely, if at all, actually discussed the essence of the points surrounded by inaccurate verbiage.

It is asinine for you to assume all that you assumed as aforementioned, explained, add to the fact that you added a little remark about assuming how the hypothetical area is treated after logging and for what purpose when nobody before you had made such distinction. MAYBE if I had actually argued what you erroneously purported for the reasons that you erroneously purport in consideration of the conditions that you establish for you own satisfaction THEN I might understand your logic of considering mystatements insulting .... but even that is a stretch. Worse, when you look at what I actually said and why I said it without assuming all that you did, it is absurd that anyone would be offended and the only people who would have any reason to be upset would be people who want to pass of such erroneous statesments, that I pointed out for integrity, for their geo-social agenda that would in that case be in fact derived from a movement, culture or "community" or group of whatever term that you wish to call it rather than individual thoughts of logic, truth and science. People interested in logic, truth and science would simply commend me for trying to maintain the integrity of the discussion.

This is one of those moments when I ask - "why even bother?".

If you would like to recant your asinine assumptions and ad hominem, followed with an apology, then I will do my best to consider this to be a human error on your part that does not speak poorly of your intelligence, bias or approach to discourse and critical thinking.

After reading this post, feel free to read the rest of mine in this forum and elsewhere and maybe you will think even more about how inaccurate your speculation about my intelligence is.

Good night and good luck. ;)

Edited by KnowShtuff, 10 September 2007 - 09:09 PM.


#17 theMaxx

theMaxx

    mad 1337

  • Members
  • 135 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 10 September 2007 - 10:45 PM

edit:

I actually decided to scan over Knowschtuff's post and now I'm more confused than ever.

Who the hell still smokes crack before posting online? That shit's so '93.

Edited by theMaxx, 10 September 2007 - 10:47 PM.


#18 KnowShtuff

KnowShtuff

    elite

  • Members
  • 113 posts

Posted 10 September 2007 - 11:40 PM

edit:

I actually decided to scan over Knowschtuff's post and now I'm more confused than ever.

Who the hell still smokes crack before posting online? That shit's so '93.


I guess you do [smoke crack before posting online] if you can't follow the logic? :P

I'm confused because your post as it is could mean various things. I'm confused because in order to better understand what your post means, I'd have to know what you posted before your edit.

If you are trying to place me in a box to try to understand me, then it won't work. I bust through boxes.

I was going to compliment your posts in this thread as being the best summary. Especially, "Idiots, "Fuck 'em all", "Get $$"; because if you want to get down to the truth then you point out that the whole intelligent civil discourse, revolution movement may not be futile but it has low probability of desired success in our lifetime so in order to make the best of it one might logically agree with your summation.

The "jews" part, is also actually considerable, if you are either joking or reading and listening to things like the works of Benjamin Freedman, Jimmy Carter, Chomsky et al to put pieces of the puzzle together. However, any rational criticism of the military industrial complex and politics of Zionism, or Israel as debated by pro-Israel jews versus anti-Israel jews, is often vehemently denigrated as anti-semitism no matter if it is coming from a jew or not and no matter if it actually is anti-semitic or not. So, I cannot agree with such a blanket statement of yours. Worse, you could actually be an ignorant anti-semitic, nazi or something to that effect ... in which case I would abhor those specific prejudices.

I guess you can take this as a compliment, but if you are going to result to asinine ad hominem and childish jokes in feeble attempts to put me in any box of foolishness then you can go fuck yourself.

#19 Colonel Panic

Colonel Panic

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 607 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:IN YR BROWSER, SAYIN SUM SHIT

Posted 11 September 2007 - 01:52 AM

Jesus

#20 KnowShtuff

KnowShtuff

    elite

  • Members
  • 113 posts

Posted 11 September 2007 - 09:53 AM

Jesus


....is fiction. Too much pride on your part to be mature, I guess.




BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!