the day after tomorrow

I have seen nothing written to change my mind.

Jar, you took my "selfish" post a little outta context. I don't think it's fine to pump out chemicals, I don't think it's fine to gulp down oil without caution, and without planning for the future, refining or changing, I don't think it's fine to cut down trees and everything else with reckless abandon. What I am saying is that Id-Ens are sensationalists, and while there may be something to what they claim, it is always blown way outta proportion.

Jar, you said some companies seem intent on chopping down all the earth's trees.
1. Where did you get your facts from?
2. How many trees are cut down each day/year/second?
3. How many are replanted to replace those harvested? I think you just tossed out a well-used prose without much research or evidence to back it up.

And is this a new development? I would think that someone living in Death Valley, CA, would be more likely to get skin cancer than someone living in the Appalachian mountains, or a rain forest.

Nukes. Everybody wrote about nukes.
1. How many nukes, exactly, would it take to fuck up the planet? Sure one detonated nuke fucks up an area pretty bad, but...
2. Which country that has enough nukes to "destroy the world" is going to be stupid enough to unleash them all? Those countries that would even think about unleashing a nuke either doesn't have any, or doesn't have enough.

Hole in the Ozone Layer.
1. First of all, for the ignorant there really is no "hole". There is thinner layers of ozone at certain spots, but no place is completely devoid of ozone.
2. Did you know that the very first time the ozone structure was examined, the supposed "hole" was present then? So, we can't tell if the hole was just formed due to CFCs, or if the hole has always been there.
3. One theory goes that the thin layer of ozone at the South Pole, and the thicker layers at the equatorial region is due to earth's rotation. Look, folks, there's Spin for both sides of the argument!! Gasp!!

I agree there is not enough research to prove or disprove either side of the equation. But, I'd rather take my information from scientists, not Spin Doctors, politicians, radio or tv talk show hosts, and celebrities. And I've just not heard scientists that are quite as alarmist as the latter. Icairus

 

enviromentalists are all hypocrites anyway. they want you to save the trees, but they want to drive their big ass gas-guzzling SUVs up to the parks to enjoy them. they're mad cuz dolphins are getting killed by tuna-nets, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING TUNA?!?!?! you don't see anyone taking their side. they complain about the conditions poultry is raised in, but say it's okay to kill them as long as they're farmed humanely. it's all rediculous. yeah, maybe we will fuck up the planet beyond all recognition... in doing so, we'll undoubtably kill ourselves, and the earth will keep going. the earth will heal, new creatures will evolve, and we'll be long dead for our stupidity. so it all works out.

now, before you start, i'm not saying we should all freely try to destroy the earth just cuz we can. i'm saying that everything gets blown out of proportion, and nothing is as bad or as good as we think it is. like retard said, lots of spin on both sides.

 

1st off, I'm going to go over a few quick grammatical issues.

either DON'T have any, or DON'T have enough.

Wrong! It is obviously all greeniculous.
Rosenshyne, I'm not even going to address anything else in your recent post because "rediculous" is one of the most sensibly written things in it. Try fully forming ideas before writing them, instead of stream of conciousness.

Retard, however, used the time to make an intelligent post. And I was going to write an appropriate response right now, but I realized I don't have time. It will be edited in later, or possibly posted later if need be.

 

Now, I happen to be a bit of a nut when it comes to these things.... so I'll inform you of something my science teacher told me: America, despite our gross-excess in almost everything is the ONLY country that replants as many trees as it cuts down. Most of the trees that are being cut down aren't being replanted because the land is being turned into farm-land. America makes a lot of profit off of the Timber industry, so we re-plant our trees so that we get them back. Other countries just cut down and sell Timber because they want it out of the way.

 

Yeah, and I'm still befuddled as to how your name appeared at the end of my post. I swear I didn't type it.

Sorry bout the grammar. I was typing fast, as the ideas come to me so I wouldn't forget anything. Besides, everybody is knowing here that I'm a strict grammatarians.

 

I don't have exact facts, but I do know that an obscene amount of trees are cut down daily. Some trees take quite a long time to grow to a decent size, and it takes only a short amount of time to knock them down and turn them into furniture.

Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. Of course if there's overhead cover you're not going to get as much sunlight, and therefore have a much lower risk of skin cancer. But most of Australia ISN'T covered by trees, and it is a FACT that the one of (if not the) biggest killers in Australia is skin cancer. It doesn't happen because we're below the Equator, it happens because there's a shitload more UV rays coming down on us than pretty much any other place in the world.

1. I don't know. But there's definitely enough around, especially if they were used in strategic areas.

2. Ever hear of the Cold War, and the accompanying arms race? Of course you did. But the USA and Russia didn't spend that whole time making bullets, they were making nukes. And unless there's been a big ass secret disarmament program, most of them are still around.

1. I never said completely devoid of ozone, but it's referred to as the "Hole in the Ozone Layer", just like Bombay Duck isn't a fish dish.

2. CFC's were banned for a reason dude.

3. That's one hell of a centrifugal force then. Or gravitational. Whatever.

Retard, I also prefer to listen to scientists. When I read magazines, I pretty much read National Geographic. Are you going to tell me that's infested with spin doctors, politicians, talk show hosts of any sort, or celebrities? It's not my exclusive source of information on these sorts of subjects, but I regard it as a pretty good authority on them.

 

Replanting isn't as effective as it may seem. After loggers go in and cut the trees down they replace them with sapplings. But what makes more oxygen a tree or a sappling? What is going to provide adequate shelter and stuff for animals? A tree or a sappling? Besides when we do go in and cut a forest down we dont replant in the forest, we count the trees knocked down and put some sapplings somewhere else. Eco system still destroyed, animals still dead.

And I don't know about you but in Australia (coz all the poeple in charge are stupid) we replant pine trees and cut them down. The problem is, their leaf, spine thingies are acidic and destroy the ground for a couple human generations. Ever notice if you do go through a pine forest that's the only thing that grows there? And it ain't just because the block the sunlight out.

I'll be fucked if I'm going to do anything about the environment apart from bitch about it on a forum.

 

The oxygen production of trees and most other plants you see is almost negligible. Oxygen is produced from Carbon Dioxide in the ocean.

And I have to give retard props for this:

No, there's only spin on one side of the argument! On the other there is CFCs.

Oh, and despite the fact that you claimed you "saw nothing to change your mind" you really did seem to. Instead of simply spouting off conservative propaganda, you spouted off a version of the conservative propaganda that had been thought about and the moronic chunks removed so that it was no longer moronic and instead a valid way of looking at the facts. Although I believe it to be the wrong one, I really am no longer able to claim that what you are saying is moronic. damn.

 

Thank you Icairus. I appreciate that statement equally as much as your right to examine the facts and form your own opinion. (Even if it is wrong.)

Those two sentences kinda contradict. With overhead cover, there's less cancer, but most of Australia ISN'T covered by trees. So..... could this be part of the reason for the high rate of skin cancer? You certainly didn't prove that it's only because of some holey ozone.

To quote you further, no shit, Sherlock. I know the US and Russia both have nuclear stockpiles. But like I said, which country that has enough nukes to blow the tits off the world will be stupid enough to use them? I realize there's no way to answer that question, Russia could get up one morning and say, "Damn the Americanski. Press ze big red button." This nuke argument is as unprovable as the environmental one.

Mean ass.

I said

I wasn't directing this at you, I said "for the ignora....." Oh, I see.

Of course they were. I know why they were banned. They were bad for the environment. They caused problems with ozone. Not a good thing. However, I said that we can't really prove that CFC's caused the thinner layer of ozone at the South Pole. You, in turn, didn't prove that they did.

Well, it's a big ol' ball, spinning wickedly fast. I said it's a theory.
http://www.dictionary.com Type in the word theory.

No, I read NG. I think that a lot of intelligent, qualified people devote their lives to research, and spell out their findings in the pages of NG. I don't think it's completely without bias, though. Just like most things aren't, I reckon.

Until someone proves this wrong, I'll let this argument die.

I don't think that completely clearing the earth of woods is healthy. However, I heard a thing a while back, that geologists had researched sattelite imagery, and all other nifty scientific shit, and had concluded that 48 or 49% of the land mass on earth is un-inhabitable woodsland. Not desert, not tundra, not ice mass, but woodsland. In the end, all I can offer on this particular argument here is what I see around myself. And damn, there's a lot of woods here. But you guys gotta realize, the area I live in, is 75% or more planted pine land. It's the single biggest cash crop in my part of the country, more so than marijuana, acre for acre, or dime sack for dime sack. Even when a place is cleared, yeah it looks gaudy, but it's replanted within a year, and I realize, damn, I gotta drive past a lot of forest to get to that small tract they just cut down.

Land seems bigger when there's nothing on it.

Retard out.

 

No, what I was saying was, being exposed to too much sunlight can cause skin cancer. Naturallly if there's cover, you aren't going to be exposed as much. A thinner layer of ozone doesn't help matters any though...and seeing as most places in the world aren't covered by trees, yet Australia has the highest skin cancer rate in the world, that would point to us having less ozone cover wouldn't it?

You were accusing me of ignorance, because I referred to holes in the ozone layer. Maybe not directly, but you were still doing it.

I find that pretty hard to believe. I doubt 50% of Africa is woodland, and Australia is at least 90% desert. Antarctica is 100% desert. Right there you've got 3 pretty big landmasses which don't have many trees, and I seriously doubt the rest of the world has enough trees to average all of that out.

 

**Note** You dont know me, im basically a forum lurker.

Retard, Yes, its quite annoying to hear extremely liberal tree huggers make irritating claims about the environment. And yes, I doubt very much that humans could ever bring on an Ice age. However there are 2 approaches humans can take at this point: the cautious approach or the stupid approach.

Currently we are on the stupid approach. Basically were going about our business as we always have. However, if this way IS harming the environment, then were screwed. :thumbdown:

The other aproach is the safe approach. Not tree hugging, vegan, rediculous demands safe approach, but long term future planning to improve the environment.
:thumbup:

Someday it might look stupid. Theres a chance that were not erroding the ozone layer, and were not cuasing global warming. However, if we are, and we do nothing, were screwed. Think of environmental protection as insurance in case we someday find out that were screwing ourselves into oblivion with SUV's and the like.

On a side note, the movie kind of sucked. There was way too much politics as well.

 

Jarinor, I really was not. When I typed that comment, I didn't have you, Icairus, rosie in mind. I know that "hole in the ozone" is the popular name for thin layers of ozone.

Fly over the US, or Canada. All you see are woodslands. Also, South America is the same.

 

Um, there is a large part of South America which is covered by rainforests, but most of the rest is either mountains, prairies (loadsa grass, almost no trees; that's where I live) or tundra in the far south.

 

But as far a i know a patch of forest the size of a football field is cut down every few somehting or others.

 

Bah who gives a shit about oxygen. It's the ecosystems and animals made extinct that would make me think. Otherwise I don't care.

 

Kill the homeless, They waste precious oxygen.

 

And drink grog. Not to mention they have the nerve to ask for our hard-earned money*. GET A JOB ALL YOU BUMS, who by chance might read this message. Or if you see one pass my message on to them

*or not so hard earned

 

Most people nowadays manipulate money, and don't contribute anything to society.

 

And who, precisely, is going to give them one, hmm? Might it be that they are bums because they were laid off in the first place, and couldn't find work afterwards?

 

Question: Who paid for the movie? Looks like a good way to get Attention.