PDA

View Full Version : Earth Hour, it seems to have arrived.



Phrea
March 27th, 2010, 09:02 PM
http://www.earthhour.org/

Do you participate?

_h_
March 27th, 2010, 09:03 PM
No I don't it's pointless.

tica vun
March 27th, 2010, 09:04 PM
Yeah, I turned every electric appliance on to offset the power network stress caused by eco-hippies turning theirs off. :D

executor
March 27th, 2010, 09:04 PM
no i don't it's pointless.

+1

Artificial Intelligence
March 27th, 2010, 09:23 PM
At the moment I have all the light switched off, only light comes from my computer :p
It's end about 7 min where I'm at.

Phrea
March 27th, 2010, 09:26 PM
At the moment I have all the light switched off, only light comes from my computer :p
It's end about 7 min where I'm at.

You always have your lights switched off, or did you do it just for the Earth Hour?

I personally didn't participate, well, just for a couple of minutes, to amuse myself, but it got boring really quick. :P

And sorry for that link, that site is horrible !

LookTJ
March 27th, 2010, 09:27 PM
Nope.

thekanuk
March 27th, 2010, 09:31 PM
I've been so busy reading for the last few days, I didn't even know about it. :shock:

koleoptero
March 27th, 2010, 09:33 PM
No I don't it's pointless.

+1

Unless you have a date and use candles.

Phrea
March 27th, 2010, 09:34 PM
At the moment I have all the light switched off, only light comes from my computer :p
It's end about 7 min where I'm at.

You can switch on your lights again. :P

Artificial Intelligence
March 27th, 2010, 09:34 PM
You always have your lights switched off, or did you do it just for the Earth Hour?

I personally didn't participate, well, just for a couple of minutes, to amuse myself, but it got boring really quick. :P

And sorry for that link, that site is horrible !

Normally I don't have much lights on, but again I use these light bulbs that last forever and uses almost no power.

One of my light bulbs is running on the 8 years :popcorn:


You can switch on your lights again.

Will do ;)

Phrea
March 27th, 2010, 09:37 PM
I'm slowly switching from the old TL 'bulbs' to LED bulbs.
LED bulbs should last even longer than the TL ones.

dragos240
March 27th, 2010, 10:07 PM
No I don't it's pointless.

No, it isn't if enough people participate, much power can be saved.

_h_
March 27th, 2010, 10:08 PM
No, it isn't if enough people participate, much power can be saved.

My previous statement stands, it's pointless.

Phrea
March 27th, 2010, 10:10 PM
No, it isn't if enough people participate, much power can be saved.

AFAIK it was about light pollution anyways...
I agree with _h_ [never thought I'd do that ;) ], it's totally pointless.

sandyd
March 27th, 2010, 10:16 PM
i normally have all the lights off (or dimmed) in my house anyways, so it really doesnt make a difference. I just dont like it being so bright in my house. + I have X10 in my house, so I can switch on and off everything and keep track of all lights, appliences .etc.etc in my house via the web, my computer, and my cell. the only thing that never goes off in my house are the UPSes (3h backup for all server / network / internet equiptment) and the X10 system itself....

gnomeuser
March 27th, 2010, 10:27 PM
It's night time, the lights are off regardless. I normally do my best not to waste electricity so I don't see the point in a special hour for it.

It saves me money and conserves important resources.

executor
March 27th, 2010, 11:30 PM
my previous statement stands, it's pointless.

+1

_h_
March 27th, 2010, 11:30 PM
+1

+1.

executor
March 27th, 2010, 11:36 PM
+1.

+1 :)

K.L.
March 28th, 2010, 12:05 AM
http://www.earthhour.org/

Do you participate?

Yep, I did participate.

By the way, those +1 comments are pointless, it's just like spam, you know. And don't dare to reply to me with a +1 comment.

_h_
March 28th, 2010, 12:06 AM
Yep.

By the way, those +1 comments are pointless, it's just like spam, you know. And don't dare to reply to me with a +1 comment.

This whole thread is spam.

Phrea
March 28th, 2010, 12:08 AM
No, this thread isn't spam [what is your defenition of spam? ], it is about my personal curiosity about people who did or didn't participate. :)

Swagman
March 28th, 2010, 12:11 AM
Just because people turn their lights off doesn't mean the power stations stop generating.

They cant.

Electricity Isn't like gas where if you don't use it then it's still in the pipe. Electricity has to flow.

So it's utterly pointless. You would need to shut a powerstation down for a month to make any difference.

You fancy being without the leccy for a month ?

Thought not. You like your beer chilled don't you !!

K.L.
March 28th, 2010, 12:11 AM
This whole thread is spam.

I see now.



The Community Cafe

The Community Spam area is for lighthearted and enjoyable spamming...

Phrea
March 28th, 2010, 12:12 AM
Just because people turn their lights off doesn't mean the power stations stop generating.

They cant.

Electricity Isn't like gas where if you don't use it then it's still in the pipe. Electricity has to flow.

So it's utterly pointless. You would need to shut a powerstation down for a month to make any difference.

You fancy being without the leccy for a month ?

Thought not. You like your beer chilled don't you !!

Good, but moot point, it's about light pollution, afaik.

_h_
March 28th, 2010, 12:16 AM
Just because people turn their lights off doesn't mean the power stations stop generating.

They cant.

Actually power stations can shut down their systems, but it would take awhile to do.

Chronon
March 28th, 2010, 12:18 AM
Swagman: AFAIK, the voltage of the power lines is maintained. The less power that's used by consumers the less current actually flows and the less the dynamos have to turn in order to maintain the voltage. Is there a flaw in this reasoning?

bwhite82
March 28th, 2010, 12:36 AM
Swagman: AFAIK, the voltage of the power lines is maintained. The less power that's used by consumers the less current actually flows and the less the dynamos have to turn in order to maintain the voltage. Is there a flaw in this reasoning?

Absolutely correct. And I will be participating, little under an hour to go for the east coast.

MichaelSammels
March 28th, 2010, 12:39 AM
I took part yeah. I would think though, that my computer uses more power than my four lights :P

Frogs Hair
March 28th, 2010, 12:57 AM
I have an hour and 40 min to wait I hate bright light unless its the Sun anyway . If something is not being used it gets turned off here, and that includes computers.

SoFl W
March 28th, 2010, 01:09 AM
http://blogstar.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5520b72ea883401310f5dd3b6970c-800wi

Celebrating everything that man has accomplished.


Here is Tiny Tim singing about the melting ice caps in 1968.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DEoOdcYKbc

Every generation has to go through this "we are about to destroy the earth" crap, and every generation seems to fall for it.

handy
March 28th, 2010, 01:33 AM
I didn't participate, I ran as per usual, which meant that there weren't any lights on in the house anyway. My wife is away for the weekend due to a Cello workshop, otherwise she would have had a light on in her office, & her computer on also.

We get all of our electricity from solar panels on our roof (grid feed system) so we are doing something about the energy crisis that so many don't think we are having. Very recently the cost of electricity went up 65% here. That is an enormous cost to the community on the whole, that have to buy what they use off the grid.

As far as the Earth hour being pointless is concerned, I disagree. I think it is primarily about bringing the concept of efficient energy usage to the world's ever growing population. More people means more of our limited resources are in demand. We have to get smart about how we use these resources & now, otherwise we are creating problems for our selves & our offspring.

Oldies like me will be least effected by these problems, the young people are the ones that should be jumping up & down & getting their governments attention to bring in intelligent policies that promote the best outcome for all.

Obviously, it is the young people & the unborn who are the ones that have the most to lose if we continue to be irresponsible, negligent & careless about the future we are creating...

Chronon
March 28th, 2010, 01:45 AM
Every generation has to go through this "we are about to destroy the earth" crap, and every generation seems to fall for it.

The concern isn't about destroying Earth. It's about keeping Earth comfortable for human beings.

_h_
March 28th, 2010, 01:49 AM
The concern isn't about destroying Earth. It's about keeping Earth comfortable for human beings.

What is making it uncomfortable for us?

JDShu
March 28th, 2010, 02:03 AM
Just because people turn their lights off doesn't mean the power stations stop generating.

They cant.

Electricity Isn't like gas where if you don't use it then it's still in the pipe. Electricity has to flow.

So it's utterly pointless. You would need to shut a powerstation down for a month to make any difference.


Physics Fail.

SoFl W
March 28th, 2010, 05:50 AM
What is making it uncomfortable for us?

Every generation they complain that it will no longer be comfortable for us and yet it continues to be comfortable for us.

There were many mainstream films in the 60s that predicted by the year 2000 we would be in great danger if we didn't do something right away. In the 70s they said there was an ice age coming and we had to do something right away or we were in trouble.

The earth has had periods of warmth with and without humans, the earth has had periods of cold with and without humans. Other planets go through these cycles as well. The climate has been changing for four billion years, it will continue to change.

earthpigg
March 28th, 2010, 06:20 AM
hundreds and hundreds of millions are spent annually to raise "awareness" about the fact that our industries and cows (methane gas) are essentially geoengineering the planet to be warmer.

whatever. let's spend $50m to geoengineer the planet to be colder to compensate. problem solved.

http://intellectualventureslab.com/?page_id=258

the alternative is that our steadily increasing population is going to magically LOWER pollution as time progresses over the long run. good luck with that one. turning the lights off can slow the process down, but that is it. instead of our grandchildren facing a holocaust, our great great grandchildren will. gg.

and the whole concept that increased levels of co2 at sea/ground level is a recipe for disaster is crap anyways. a few hundred years ago, the earth was at 280 parts per million. today, we are at 380 ppm. dinosaurs lived with 1,000 ppm. animals will be fine, and plans will benefit from more carbon.

we will be fine.

koleoptero
March 28th, 2010, 07:06 AM
Every generation has to go through this "we are about to destroy the earth" crap, and every generation seems to fall for it.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy maniac but the media has to keep the masses worried about other stuff than the fact that the few are ripping off the many and we're all forced to live our life the way others dictate us to and various other unpleasant stuff.

matthew.ball
March 28th, 2010, 07:12 AM
Would I be correct in assuming you all have PhDs in this crap, and the claims you are making are not just unsubstantiated conjectures?

Because otherwise, in the whole spirit of scientific knowledge, evidence goes a fair way to support these claims...

earthpigg
March 28th, 2010, 07:20 AM
Would I be correct in assuming you all have PhDs in this crap, and the claims you are making are not just unsubstantiated conjectures?

Because otherwise, in the whole spirit of scientific knowledge, evidence goes a fair way to support these claims...

not quite.

the same guys that are paid to decide if there is or is not a threat to the planet are also the ones that (if they "impartially" decide there is a threat) will get paid to research it further.

here's an example:

If you claim that Ubuntu is better than Windows, and I'll hire you and pay you buckets of money.

Knowing that, would anyone here not thus like to make that claim?

ikt
March 28th, 2010, 08:38 AM
The earth has had periods of warmth with and without humans, the earth has had periods of cold with and without humans. Other planets go through these cycles as well. The climate has been changing for four billion years, it will continue to change.

Can you explain the direct link between the co2 and rate of temperature rising?



here's an example:

If you claim that Ubuntu is better than Windows, and I'll hire you and pay you buckets of money.

Knowing that, would anyone here not thus like to make that claim?

If scientifically valid tests were done on all aspects of both operating systems, and it was considered that overall windows was 'better' than ubuntu, then no, I would not take your buckets of money to lie.

To suggest that scientists are taking money and making the results fit is beyond ridicules.


We get all of our electricity from solar panels on our roof (grid feed system) so we are doing something about the energy crisis that so many don't think we are having.

That is awesome of you :), just got myself some power adapters that report the usage to see where all of ours is going.

handy
March 28th, 2010, 09:44 AM
...just got myself some power adapters that report the usage to see where all of ours is going.

I purchased a PowerMate a while back, it allows me to get readings on anything that plugs into a power point. You can put in your electricity costs/kw & also the green house gas emissions/kw, & it gives you the readouts on a /hr /qtr /year basis, on those as well as power (as the electricity company sees it), watts, ohms, volts, min/max where appropriate & probably more.

Depending on what type of appliance it is as to how long it is useful to leave it plugged in. For our fridge, freezer, computers & such, I left them plugged in for days.

It has been a real education to get accurate readings on all of this stuff. Everyone should do it.

In Oz, they are starting to make these sorts of things available in the public library system, which is a brilliant idea.

koleoptero
March 28th, 2010, 09:57 AM
Would I be correct in assuming you all have PhDs in this crap, and the claims you are making are not just unsubstantiated conjectures?

Because otherwise, in the whole spirit of scientific knowledge, evidence* goes a fair way to support these claims...

*citation needed :P

ikt
March 28th, 2010, 10:56 AM
*citation needed :P

[1] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
[2] http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
[3] http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
[4] more here (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+change+evidence)


I purchased a PowerMate a while back

I got this one:

http://ijk.com.au/branch/ijk/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=&products_id=124783

was 30 bucks, fairly cheap imo.

3rdalbum
March 28th, 2010, 12:28 PM
Can you explain the direct link between the co2 and rate of temperature rising?

The rate of temperature rising correlates with the amount of sun activity. Greater heat causes plants to release more CO2.

ikt
March 28th, 2010, 01:02 PM
The rate of temperature rising correlates with the amount of sun activity. Greater heat causes plants to release more CO2.

That has been proven to be false.


The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html


Several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

- Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

- If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

- Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/


During the past two decades (1976-1996) direct observations of solar irradiance suggest negligible long-term solar forcing of climate.

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/991118FO.html

earthpigg
March 28th, 2010, 07:44 PM
If scientifically valid tests were done on all aspects of both operating systems, and it was considered that overall windows was 'better' than ubuntu, then no, I would not take your buckets of money to lie.

To suggest that scientists are taking money and making the results fit is beyond ridicules.


so the scientists that, at various times in our history, that have claimed the following wheren't gaming the experiments to find the desired results?

science has said that white people are superior in most ways to others.
science has said that women are naturally less intelligent.

also, smoking is healthy.
furthermore, Marijuana causes Mexican agricultural workers to become uncontrollably violent. we need to outlaw Marijuana immediately.

want me to find links for all of that?

Lightstar
March 28th, 2010, 07:46 PM
I did it.

Turning off lights and other electirc things is easy to do.

rfred
March 28th, 2010, 08:25 PM
I was going to make some smart-assed comment about trying to shoot out as many poorly designed outdoor lights that I could in an hour, but then I started reading some of the comments from people responding to the original post.

Have you ever looked at the pictures of the Earth taken by astronauts in space? Do you realize that we have only one Earth that can support us and that our planet is not "healthy?" We are fouling our nest at an incredible rate and we are risking the future of not only our species but countless others by our short-sighted greed and other irresponsible actions.

As an amateur astronomer I am astounded that people can't take one hour to turn off all of their electronic devices and yes, outdoor lighting. I would like to suggest an added activity for next year - when all of those lights are off go outside and look up. The Moon, stars and planets are still up there, we've just lost the ability to see the incredible universe that surrounds us in order to have a false sense of security.

I know it's a long-shot, but if I haven't entirely pissed you off a good place to start enjoying what's "up there" is:

http://www.skymaps.com/downloads.html

and if you want to enjoy an astounding image:

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/

Sorry for the rant.

p.s. I was fortunate to be in the presence of one of the original copies of Galileo's "Starry Messenger" this past week. It was published a scant 400 years ago and that Hubble image is a testament to humankind's continuing search for knowledge.

handy
March 28th, 2010, 11:44 PM
...
also, smoking is healthy.

More Doctors smoke Camel.

& they have PhD's...

new_tolinux
March 29th, 2010, 12:00 AM
Have you ever looked at the pictures of the Earth taken by astronauts in space?
No. But I've seen space from not-out-of-space, as there is plenty of space here without city lights blocking the sight.

Do you realize that we have only one Earth that can support us and that our planet is not "healthy?" We are fouling our nest at an incredible rate and we are risking the future of not only our species but countless others by our short-sighted greed and other irresponsible actions.
I do realize that we have only one Earth. And I couldn't care less if it's going to be fully destroyed. As if "Earth" was the biggest problem on Earth. The destruction of "Earth" will solve every other problem mankind has. It will be a favor to everyone whohas to suffer. For example because there's not enough food in their country, although there are many other reasons which I'm not going to put here, because that list would always be incomplete.

So I did not participate. And probably I will never participate in something like this.
It's pointless, like said in #2. It does not solve anything. Even if someone thinks that the main problem is "Earth", one hour per year does not make any difference.

Mr. Picklesworth
March 29th, 2010, 12:01 AM
No, it isn't if enough people participate, much power can be saved.

The point of earth hour, as I understand it, really has nothing to do with saving power. It's about demonstrating how a small thing turning off just your lights for an hour can have a valid impact on the road to a sustainable society.




The concern isn't about destroying Earth. It's about keeping Earth comfortable for human beings.

I agree, but there's more to it. I wish people didn't take all this babble about climate change as the only thing that is wrong. It isn't (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/22/tech-e-waste-report.html). The big picture is important, but everyone knows it's hard to follow. The important part is the millions of small problems (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=alberta+tar+sands&sll=57.0915,-111.739197&sspn=0.963987,2.411499&ie=UTF8&hq=tar+sands&hnear=Alberta&ll=57.131768,-111.593628&spn=0.481464,1.20575&t=h&z=10&iwloc=A), backed by a hefty coat of ignorance. If talk about climate change is causing people to tune out of these problems altogether, something is seriously wrong.

Telecaster72
March 29th, 2010, 12:25 AM
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/2043/climatologydees.jpg
;););)

Mr. Picklesworth
March 29th, 2010, 12:29 AM
I took part yeah. I would think though, that my computer uses more power than my four lights :P

There are FIVE lights!

sudoer541
March 29th, 2010, 03:54 AM
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/2043/climatologydees.jpg
;););)







lol!!!!!!!!

is that the Antichrist symbol on his clothes btw?
is that Lady Gaga on the right side???
I know we are not supposed to talk bout religion, but hey am curious lol!!!

handy
March 29th, 2010, 03:57 AM
...
I do realize that we have only one Earth. And I couldn't care less if it's going to be fully destroyed. As if "Earth" was the biggest problem on Earth. The destruction of "Earth" will solve every other problem mankind has. It will be a favor to everyone whohas to suffer. For example because there's not enough food in their country, although there are many other reasons which I'm not going to put here, because that list would always be incomplete.

So I did not participate. And probably I will never participate in something like this.
It's pointless, like said in #2. It does not solve anything. Even if someone thinks that the main problem is "Earth", one hour per year does not make any difference.

Wow! I hope you're a troll, because boy, am I glad I don't have your attitude. :shock:

Living with the attitude of gratitude for the opportunity to experience the miraculous, inexplicable, mystifying manifestation of existence & consciousness sure makes every little thing better.

In general, we get out what we put in & our attitudes are the foundations of just what we give & get out of life.

ikt
March 29th, 2010, 04:15 AM
so the scientists that, at various times in our history, that have claimed the following wheren't gaming the experiments to find the desired results?

science has said that white people are superior in most ways to others.
science has said that women are naturally less intelligent.

also, smoking is healthy.
furthermore, Marijuana causes Mexican agricultural workers to become uncontrollably violent. we need to outlaw Marijuana immediately.

want me to find links for all of that?

You don't have to because I've already seen them, You appear to only be looking at the parts you want to see and ignore all evidence to the contrary, in addition (as if my avatar didn't tip you off...) the whole 'science isn't sure!' thing is a claim made up often by religious people in an attempt to discredit it, it also has been throughly debunked.



also, smoking is healthy.

Here's an article you might like:

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=855744

Cigarette smoking & global warming: 'teach the controversy'

It wasn't until around the early 20th century that the first science based objections to smoking arose. The industry responded vigorously in its own favour, and the 'controversy' commenced. The industry tried denying the medical claims, and even claimed smoking was health promoting. Later it was unable to support these claims, and had to simply deny the harmful effects of smoking.

Then the industry realised it had to focus on 'the controversy', the fact that it could always find someone who contested the anti-smoking case on some apparently scientific or medical grounds. It was argued that the data wasn't complete, the science was misunderstood, the studies weren't broad enough, or long enough, there were competing theories suggesting alternative explanations for the harm associated with smoking. Anything to convince the public that there was a genuine 'controversy'.

And that's what was pushed for the next 60 years, 'the controversy'. This was manufactured doubt. Unbeknown to the public, the 'controversy' was typically the product of industry shills, scientists and doctors in the pay of the tobacco industry, which poured literally millions of dollars into research attempting to find a credible alternative explanation for the data. The tobacco industry CEOs affirmed in public, under oath, that they believed nicotine was not addictive. Unfortunately however, their own scientists and studies had consistently discovered the opposite.

In fact tobacco industry scientific studies were literally decades ahead of government sponsored medical and scientific research into tobacco. The tobacco industry knew that nicotine was addictive over 10 years before anyone else did, and they kept this information secret. They were at the cutting edge of knowledge of the effects of tobacco and nicotine on the body. They were the first to confirm beyond doubt that cigarette smoking was a serious cancer risk. They were the first to discover the highly complex chemical reasons for nicotine addiction. They were the first to detail the pharmacological and neurological impact of tobacco on the human body. All the research they did in secret to try and discover an alternative explanation behind which they could hide, only came repeatedly to the same conclusion.

The following are excerpts from private industry documents. Remember that publicly the industry was saying the exact opposite to what you read here:

* 1962: 'We now possess a knowledge of the effects of nicotine far more extensive than exists in published scientific literature. . . for good reasons the results of Battelle's work have been kept at a high level of secrecy'

* 1963: 'Moreover, nicotine is addictive. We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug effective in the release of stress mechanisms'

* 1969: 'We have, then, as our first premise, that the primary motivation for smoking is to obtain the pharmacological effect of nicotine'

* 1972: 'In a sense, the tobacco industry may be thought of as being a specialized, highly ritualized, and stylized segment of the pharmaceutical industry. Tobacco products uniquely contain and deliver nicotine, a potent drug with a variety of physiological effects'

* 1976: 'The rush of nicotine into the blood stream and nervous system is short-lived; therefore, reducing consumption would cause withdrawal and all of its unpleasant side effects so long as the smoker is restricted from smoking. Nicotine vacates the system in 30 minutes or so and at that time withdrawal starts'

* 1978: 'Very few consumers are aware of the effects of nicotine, i.e. its addictive nature and that nicotine is a poison'

* 1982: 'Let's face facts: Cigarette smoke is biologically active. Nicotine is a potent pharmacological agent. Every toxicologist, physiologist, medical doctor and most chemists know that. It's not a secret'

* 1985: 'The view has been elaborated that nicotine is the primary reinforcer of continued smoking, and that this reinforcement value is in large part due to the functional contribution that the arousal modifying properties of nicotine makes to the negotiation of everyday life (coping)'

All this time the tobacco industry was vigorously 'selling the controversy', arguing that the testimony of certain specialists, scientists, and medical professionals in defense of tobacco and cigarette smoking was clear evidence that at best 'the jury is still out', that the case was undecided, that the science wasn't certain, the studies weren't reliable, that the scientific community itself was still in doubt.

This was a lie, plain and simple. Not only did they know for a fact that they were lying, but they also knew that the only 'controversy' was being produced by their own hired hands, the 'researchers' they had given thousands of dollars to come up with papers and documents which would give the false appearance that the scientific question was as yet unsettled.

Exactly the same tactic is being used by the 'fossil fuels' industry to try and 'sell the controversy' with regard to anthropogenic climate change. The tactics are identical. We must learn to recognize the agenda typically lying behind any apparently forthright and reasonable appeal to consider 'the controversy'.

Part 2 which covers climate change and 'teach the controversy':

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showpost.php?p=11547222&postcount=3

What about the climate change 'controversy'? How is it different? It isn't. It's exactly the same.

ikt
March 29th, 2010, 05:13 AM
http:
;););)

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4834/betterworld.jpg

:(

handy
March 29th, 2010, 05:18 AM
Great post(s) ikt.

handy
March 29th, 2010, 08:09 AM
This award winning documentary made in 1991 has a message from our Elder Brothers.

They have been on the outside of what their younger brothers have been doing for well over 1,000 years & felt the need to send us a message:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-521537373096312859#

new_tolinux
March 29th, 2010, 10:54 AM
Wow! I hope you're a troll, because boy, am I glad I don't have your attitude. :shock:

Living with the attitude of gratitude for the opportunity to experience the miraculous, inexplicable, mystifying manifestation of existence & consciousness sure makes every little thing better.

In general, we get out what we put in & our attitudes are the foundations of just what we give & get out of life.
Actually, I'm not a troll, I'm serious, both on not being a troll and on what I wrote before.

The whole concept of "we get out what we put in": I putted too much "in" life, always willing to help where I could to make everyday living for other people better (just the "simple" things, no money involved because my bank account didn't have the amount of numbers to throw with cash). Not really on some big "global" scale, but just "around the corner". What came back was mostly everything but satisfying.

Therefore I mostly don't care about anything anymore.

handy
March 29th, 2010, 11:19 AM
...
Therefore I mostly don't care about anything anymore.

I'm sorry to hear it.

I hope you find a positive attitude sometime in the future, then your life will become positive again.

Paddy Landau
March 29th, 2010, 11:48 AM
Wow, the OP seems to have touched some nerves!

It's certainly more comforting to believe in the conspiracy theories: "Oh, it'll all be all right, really, because it's all a conspiracy." I'm sure many people believe in the conspiracy simply because it's easier and more comfortable than doing and believing in something uncomfortable.

But I'm not a climate researcher, so I have to go along with what the scientists say. Of course my family took part in Earth Hour, not because we seriously thought that it would save a lot of energy, but because we would be a small part of an enormous message.

After all, no one took Greenpeace seriously when it first proposed that pollution was a big problem, or that the ozone layer was being destroyed, or that whales would become extinct if we did nothing...

Anyway, The Economist has a quite different take on this. "Action on climate is justified, not because the science is certain, but precisely because it is not. (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15720419)"