With the world slowly turning to 💩
What daily practices do you do to help create less waste and make the most out of available resources?
I often walk or longboard to most small errands in my area, I use minimal electricity, a stainless steel water bottle so I don't have to use so much plastic and constantly fill my recycle bin instead of the trash bin. Usually picking up trash in nature, even if I didn't place it there.
These are just some small things I do that actually help in the long run when done by a large amount of people. What practices do you do to ensure your home has a future? If you don't practice anything, find something of interest to you.
For those who like to bicker: what's your stance on allowing the world to go to 💩? Is there anything you can provide other than "well not everyone else is doing it, so why should I?"
The earth is our home! A beautiful one. We need to stop living off of it as a parasite, and treat it as a living being. It gave us life. Lets return the favor.
I do some of the same things. I live right in town, so no car unless I'm getting on the highway. I try to reuse a much as possible, and recycle what I can't. When I get out of school some friends and I want to get a house. We plan to invest and make it self-sustainable.
The plastic bags turn into nothing after about 3 years in house environment, I was pretty upset about it when I discovered that my 'neatly packed' projects in my workshop turned into 'pile of dust' packed ;)
* UK Tesco bags.
._. I uhh... burn my trash sometimes... and uhh.. idk...
This is a little frowned upon but I dumpster dive, hardcore. It's so disgusting what some company's throw out, on any given night I find 40-50 bread loaves that most of the time aren't even day old, pounds of fresh fruit and veggies, assorted cereals and box meals, etc. These companies often throw them out as damaged or just a day after they reach their "sell by" date, which is alright, but they go straight to the dumpster, not to shelters or the homeless/needy.
I take my phone out ever night, check for recalls on all foods I find, and rarely that's the case for them being thrown out. It's not even always food, I've found; 4 air mattresses unopened and new, 3 food dehydrators new, 2 crock pots new, 2 food processors new, assorted pans all in original packaging, and that's just in the last three months. I've only been doing this for 6 or so months, and I rarely talk about it because to the publics eyes its taboo.
However if I were to estimate per month I've cut at least 150$ off grocery bills, and often get more than I need and donate it to shelters. I've never gotten food poisoning or sick once.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 09:47:46 AM
This is a little frowned upon but I dumpster dive, hardcore. It's so disgusting what some company's throw out, on any given night I find 40-50 bread loaves that most of the time aren't even day old, pounds of fresh fruit and veggies, assorted cereals and box meals, etc. These companies often throw them out as damaged or just a day after they reach their "sell by" date, which is alright, but they go straight to the dumpster, not to shelters or the homeless/needy.
There was this famous and big case in Poland, where a company went bust because they were forced to retrospectively pay tax on bread which they gave away to charity over years. I don't think the law is so bad in the US, but you are getting there.
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 09:47:46 AM
This is a little frowned upon but I dumpster dive, hardcore. It's so disgusting what some company's throw out, on any given night I find 40-50 bread loaves that most of the time aren't even day old, pounds of fresh fruit and veggies, assorted cereals and box meals, etc. These companies often throw them out as damaged or just a day after they reach their "sell by" date, which is alright, but they go straight to the dumpster, not to shelters or the homeless/needy.
There was this famous and big case in Poland, where a company went bust because they were forced to retrospectively pay tax on bread which they gave away to charity over years. I don't think the law is so bad in the US, but you are getting there.
You are completely wrong, in fact the U.S government is willing to give tax reductions on donated food.
U.S. Congress enacted Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code in 1976 to encourage donations by allowing C corporations to earn an enhanced tax deduction for donating selected surplus property, including food.
The Code provides that wholesome food that is properly saved, donated to an approved agency and properly receipted is eligible for an enhanced tax deduction. This enhanced deduction is equal to ½ of the donated food's appreciated value, with the limitation that the total deduction cannot exceed twice the donated food's basis cost. This incremental tax deduction is calculated from the donated food's fair market value and basis food and labor cost. The IRS may challenge the value of donated food.
Fair market value (FMV) continues to be evaluated by the IRS on a company by company basis. Congress' intention to encourage this type of donation would be enhanced by codifying an important Tax Court ruling regarding FMV determinations.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 09:47:46 AM
This is a little frowned upon but I dumpster dive, hardcore. It's so disgusting what some company's throw out
You should see what some people try to recycle
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 10:12:13 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 09:47:46 AM
This is a little frowned upon but I dumpster dive, hardcore. It's so disgusting what some company's throw out, on any given night I find 40-50 bread loaves that most of the time aren't even day old, pounds of fresh fruit and veggies, assorted cereals and box meals, etc. These companies often throw them out as damaged or just a day after they reach their "sell by" date, which is alright, but they go straight to the dumpster, not to shelters or the homeless/needy.
There was this famous and big case in Poland, where a company went bust because they were forced to retrospectively pay tax on bread which they gave away to charity over years. I don't think the law is so bad in the US, but you are getting there.
You are completely wrong
Another words, you call a lie on my statement ;)
Can you donate food past the expiry date?
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 11:11:02 AM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 10:12:13 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 09:47:46 AM
This is a little frowned upon but I dumpster dive, hardcore. It's so disgusting what some company's throw out, on any given night I find 40-50 bread loaves that most of the time aren't even day old, pounds of fresh fruit and veggies, assorted cereals and box meals, etc. These companies often throw them out as damaged or just a day after they reach their "sell by" date, which is alright, but they go straight to the dumpster, not to shelters or the homeless/needy.
There was this famous and big case in Poland, where a company went bust because they were forced to retrospectively pay tax on bread which they gave away to charity over years. I don't think the law is so bad in the US, but you are getting there.
You are completely wrong
Another words, you call a lie on my statement ;)
Can you donate food past the expiry date?
The Emerson Act provides protection for food and grocery products that meet all quality and labeling standards imposed by federal, state and local laws and regulations even though the food may not be "readily marketable due to appearance, age, freshness, grade, size, surplus or other conditions."
Don't put words in my mouth please. I don't believe you lied, I'm sure there was a case in Poland but we do have laws protecting donors, both individual and cooperations, I believe you are simply grossly misinformed and stuck on your ways.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 11:20:51 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 11:11:02 AM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 10:12:13 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 09:47:46 AM
This is a little frowned upon but I dumpster dive, hardcore. It's so disgusting what some company's throw out, on any given night I find 40-50 bread loaves that most of the time aren't even day old, pounds of fresh fruit and veggies, assorted cereals and box meals, etc. These companies often throw them out as damaged or just a day after they reach their "sell by" date, which is alright, but they go straight to the dumpster, not to shelters or the homeless/needy.
There was this famous and big case in Poland, where a company went bust because they were forced to retrospectively pay tax on bread which they gave away to charity over years. I don't think the law is so bad in the US, but you are getting there.
You are completely wrong
Another words, you call a lie on my statement ;)
Can you donate food past the expiry date?
The Emerson Act provides protection for food and grocery products that meet all quality and labeling standards imposed by federal, state and local laws and regulations even though the food may not be "readily marketable due to appearance, age, freshness, grade, size, surplus or other conditions."
Don't put words in my mouth please. I don't believe you lied, I'm sure there was a case in Poland but we do have laws protecting donors, both individual and cooperations, I believe you are simply grossly misinformed and stuck on your ways.
You have some interesting law indeed, let me clarify: I don't think the law is so bad in the US, but you are getting there, in general ;)
I would say that you are absolutely wrong that I'm misinformed, although it is true that I'm stuck on my ways: anything that is incompatible with iMtG Law is a bad law and you do have tons of that in the US.
The world isn't as black and white as you believe it to be Mr.Piotr, you need to factor in the grey. I may abid by the U.S' laws, as well as imtg law, but that doesn't mean I don't see flaws in either. However we are veering off ops guided course for this thread, lets get back to that.
I used to dumpster dive. My biggest haul was a ton of books (we stopped counting at 400, and that was a little less than half) that Barnes and Noble tossed out. I was dumbfounded as to why they'd throw them away instead of donating them to a good cause. Books don't expire like food does. Tragic.
I also used to dumpster dive Krispy Kreme. Every night they throw out bags and bags of donuts that didnt sell. It was a goldmine for my poor college roommates and me.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 11:44:17 AM
The world isn't as black and white as you believe it to be Mr.Piotr, you need to factor in the grey.
Believe me, I'm the last person you want to accuse of that, kind sir ;)
Can I have an example flaw in iMtG Law, please?
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on May 15, 2013, 11:53:38 AM
I used to dumpster dive. My biggest haul was a ton of books (we stopped counting at 400, and that was a little less than half) that Barnes and Noble tossed out. I was dumbfounded as to why they'd throw them away instead of donating them to a good cause. Books don't expire like food does. Tragic.
I also used to dumpster dive Krispy Kreme. Every night they throw out bags and bags of donuts that didnt sell. It was a goldmine for my poor college roommates and me.
I hit up a local Krispy Kreme and Brueggers for delicious bagals, as well as a little ceasers, but I have to show self restraint with how much is available or I'd be a perfectly round specimen lol.
As to Piotr, if as a (theroretical) father my wife died, and my little girl asked where she was, not understanding the concept of heaven (in this case an idea or state of mind, I don't believe in the place all that much) I'd tell her shed gone away for a while. This would be a lie. If I did tell her that she was dead and shed never see her again, I'd still be breaking a law, by stealing her innocence.
If (again all theretical), a gunman held my wife at gunpoint and gave me the option to either take his life or he would take hers, I would have to break four laws.
These are just some examples.
We are getting solar panels to put on the roof. Also, I have a large vegetable garden where about half of my fruit and vegetables come from. The only thing I would need to be self-sustainable would be a fresh clean water source as well!
If you are considering the investment of Solar Panels, I highly suggest it. They are expensive but excellent in the long run.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 12:26:48 PM
As to Piotr, if as a (theroretical) father my wife died, and my little girl asked where she was, not understanding the concept of heaven (in this case an idea or state of mind, I don't believe in the place all that much) I'd tell her shed gone away for a while. This would be a lie.
Yes, not legal. Simply tell the truth or change subject.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 12:26:48 PM
If I did tell her that she was dead and shed never see her again, I'd still be breaking a law, by stealing her innocence.
No, I can't see that. She asked and that means she wanted to hear the truth, you didn't do to her what she didn't want to be done to her. It's logical and your action would be legal.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 12:26:48 PM
If (again all theretical), a gunman held my wife at gunpoint and gave me the option to either take his life or he would take hers, I would have to break four laws.
No, they have broken the law, you would simply be dealing punishment. Punishment for kidnapping in progress is death, it's logical to expect that punishment and they know that.
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 02:19:30 PM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 12:26:48 PM
As to Piotr, if as a (theroretical) father my wife died, and my little girl asked where she was, not understanding the concept of heaven (in this case an idea or state of mind, I don't believe in the place all that much) I'd tell her shed gone away for a while. This would be a lie.
Yes, not legal. Simply tell the truth or change subject.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 12:26:48 PM
If I did tell her that she was dead and shed never see her again, I'd still be breaking a law, by stealing her innocence.
No, I can't see that. She asked and that means she wanted to hear the truth, you didn't do to her what she didn't want to be done to her. It's logical and your action would be legal.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 12:26:48 PM
If (again all theretical), a gunman held my wife at gunpoint and gave me the option to either take his life or he would take hers, I would have to break four laws.
No, they have broken the law, you would simply be dealing punishment. Punishment for kidnapping in progress is death, it's logical to expect that punishment and they know that.
So I wouldn't be breaking the do no harm law? Or the do not murder law? Or rather specifically, don't break the law to uphold the law, or that the ends don't justify the means?
You can't change the law just so it fits the way you see it Piotr.
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 11:11:02 AM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 10:12:13 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 09:47:46 AM
This is a little frowned upon but I dumpster dive, hardcore. It's so disgusting what some company's throw out, on any given night I find 40-50 bread loaves that most of the time aren't even day old, pounds of fresh fruit and veggies, assorted cereals and box meals, etc. These companies often throw them out as damaged or just a day after they reach their "sell by" date, which is alright, but they go straight to the dumpster, not to shelters or the homeless/needy.
There was this famous and big case in Poland, where a company went bust because they were forced to retrospectively pay tax on bread which they gave away to charity over years. I don't think the law is so bad in the US, but you are getting there.
You are completely wrong
Another words, you call a lie on my statement ;)
Can you donate food past the expiry date?
No
In LA many film sets used to feed homeless with excess food instead of throwing it away. One day a guy sued a studio and won big; needless to say you cannot give food away anymore if you're a business. You will get sued by an .rearexit.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ210/pdf/PLAW-104publ210.pdf
Read that and tell me differently
While what that law reads is there is no penalty. Other than pastries - we never donated sandwiches, milk and older fruit.
Movie sets no longer give food away as someone actually sued Hollywood in the last 20 years and won big. So perhaps it is prepared food specifically somewhere?
I feel like most 99cent only stores have nothing but expired product
Shouldn't the discussion about imtg law go to the ultimate law discussion thread?
How about we drop the law talk and stay on topic.
How are YOU sustainable? Ever keep track of how much waste you produce in a week?
Those of you who consume fast food still: for a week, hold onto all the trash you would otherwise throw a way, wherever it may be. If you didn't change any of your normal habits by doing this (other than tossing trash) you will see your carbon footprint.
For the 1 minute you eat a McDonald's hamburger - you've created a few forms of waste: excrement (hard to prevent that), 1 sheet of wax paper, a bag that can fit several hamburgers and possibly a napkin or two.
Plus you probably got more as a hamburger doesn't fill up anyone at McDonald's.
This is just your lunch! You got a soda too?!! Add that to the pile. If you eat on the road at least twice a day, just imagine that amount of trash you created with one meal. Now with how many humans there are, just imagine how much waste is being produced!
You could have not driven to McDonald's and cooked a meal at home (sandwiches only need your kinetic energy - unless u like em toasted ): oh you're a student? Wake up earlier and make your food. Use a small Tupperware set to keep it fresh and you don't have to produce waste...
It's too much to carry around? We're gonna have to bury more and more trash near us as we produce more of it (trash).
I wanna hear about how you sustain!
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 02:33:15 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 02:19:30 PM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 12:26:48 PM
As to Piotr, if as a (theroretical) father my wife died, and my little girl asked where she was, not understanding the concept of heaven (in this case an idea or state of mind, I don't believe in the place all that much) I'd tell her shed gone away for a while. This would be a lie.
Yes, not legal. Simply tell the truth or change subject.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 12:26:48 PM
If I did tell her that she was dead and shed never see her again, I'd still be breaking a law, by stealing her innocence.
No, I can't see that. She asked and that means she wanted to hear the truth, you didn't do to her what she didn't want to be done to her. It's logical and your action would be legal.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 12:26:48 PM
If (again all theretical), a gunman held my wife at gunpoint and gave me the option to either take his life or he would take hers, I would have to break four laws.
No, they have broken the law, you would simply be dealing punishment. Punishment for kidnapping in progress is death, it's logical to expect that punishment and they know that.
So I wouldn't be breaking the do no harm law? Or the do not murder law? Or rather specifically, don't break the law to uphold the law, or that the ends don't justify the means?
You can't change the law just so it fits the way you see it Piotr.
The law says: 'or you will be punished regardless of your will', punishment is exempted from 'do not do to others'. If there is a flaw in iMtG Law, you haven't found it yet, but please keep trying.
try to keep it biodegradable, and if you can't, and it is incendiary, you can just burn it. Global warming people are opposed to this but there is much less solid waste, and you provide more carbon for plants, burning can be a good thing, as long as you do it right.
Quote from: Taysby on May 19, 2013, 09:18:03 PM
NASA just recently released a report, and they found that additional C02 in he atmosphere actually helps cool down the earth, so global warming is a bunch of garbage. The earth is just going through normal changes.
Regardless, I agree that it's better not to pollute, mainly because who likes to breathe gross air.
Can I see your source for this information, please?
Quote from: KangaRod on May 20, 2013, 07:21:45 AM
No harm can come from being conscious about being more efficient.
Probably not much, unfortunately 'global warming' or 'climate change' is not about being more efficient, it is about making bankers, politicians and PWC rich, via carbon credits. The amount of scaremongering and blatant lies which are being spread in the process is quite appaling too, and more and more scientists are leaving the bandwagon.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 20, 2013, 11:05:53 AM
And as for Piotr... People getting rich selling things goes for everything you stand for, and basically has been what you claim is the only way to a successful economy for the last month.
I hope im just misunderstaning the implication thay the notion that these noble capitalists spotting a business venture and intending to get rich on the backs of the planet isn't something that upsets you, as that would make you extremely hypocritical.
Carbon Credits are instrument of reducing free market and as such, logically, are something absolutely against everything I stand for :D
Carbon Credits are not a product, they are a form of company tax. Companies are forced to buy them (pay tax) if they exceed emission quotas decided by politicians.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 20, 2013, 12:29:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand how a country selling carbon credits is different than a company, except that a company is not reaponsible to anyone other than itself.
It is different because nothing happens when you do not buy a proper product. On the other hand, if a company which surpasses its emission limits does not buy Carbon Credits, it is penalised with fines far exceeding the value of Carbon Credits. There is no option to refuse to buy your 'product' the same as there is no option to refuse to pay taxes.
This is not the case here.
Whoa! Lets clarify some things then: polluting is putting naughty poisonous stuff in the environment, stuff like heavy metals (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metals#Relationship_to_living_organisms") for example. This should be punished as it is doing things which are affecting others in a bad way, something others clearly wouldn't want to be done to themselves.
Exhaling CO2 or farting methane is natural* and healthy, not polluting.
* by both mine and Gorzo's definition ;)
Quote from: KangaRod on May 21, 2013, 11:23:31 AM
So, if its a gas it's ok and not dangerous to our health?
Obviously not true: releasing mustard gas into atmosphere is punishable. Do I need to provide logic?
However, CO2 is a gas which is not harmful but beneficial to the planet. I believe it was NASA who released data on Earth's biomass over the years, and biomass is significantly statistically correlated and logically linked to levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Basically, the more CO2 the more biomass, starting with green sea plankton ending on the top of feeding pyramid, which is humans. Methane is beneficial because it have climate warming effect, thus further accelerating biomass growth. Both of these beneficial gases are punishable by Carbon Credits, which is illegal under iMtG Law.
Quote from: Taysby on May 21, 2013, 12:20:34 PM
Quote from: KangaRod on May 21, 2013, 11:23:31 AM
So, if its a gas it's ok and not dangerous to our health?
You are taking our claims and claiming that they are something they are not. He said that CO2 and methane were not harmful. You stretched it to the ends of the Earth and said that we said all gasses are not harmful. There are harmful gasses.
You can either stop saying we are saying things that we are not or you can .shut up.
Well this is probably true, can you prove it somehow, demand punishment officially and stuff, next time it is done to someone, please?
In this case KangaRod can respond along the lines of: 'no, I simply asked a question. If left unanswered, this question is like cat in a poisonous box' and that would be good enough.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 21, 2013, 02:11:50 AM
So, you're claiming that some scientists would put forward a case that polluting the planet doesn't have an effect on the climate of the planet, or is even good for it?
Even if some scientists are not sure if climate change is affected by us polluting the environment, which ones are saying that pollution is good for it?
You're so frustrated by me making connections based on things you're saying, but I'm trying to illustrate that even if 90% of the worlds scientists are absolutely 100% wrong, the opposing side of the 10% is so ridiculous that it doesn't even warrant mention.
PLEASE provide your statistical references. As I see, abou 90% of worldwide scientists don't even talk about global warming or whatsoever through research. But let's assume you considered only the ones who do talk. I would make a wild guess that about 50% say that it is not provable, some 20% would deny it strongly and about 30%, of which about 80% is HIRED by companies which benefit economically from their opinions, argument strongly in favor of the existence of human-induced bad global warming.
I will go further and add that releasing whatever you want to the atmosphere isn't bad for the planet. It may or may not be prejudicial to humans or many other living beings, but not for the planet, and not for Life in a general sense. That is because Life adapts. If we had a sudden increase in CO2 on the atmosphere of about 1500%, which isn't even CLOSE to what even the most pessimist scientist says is happening, Life would go on. Anaerobic bacterias, algae and parasitic beings would populate the earth in a few hundred years. Animals would die, as would humans. What is hundreds, or even thousands of years, compared to earth's age?
What you said about carbon credits being free market is simply outright ignorant. The basic presumption of free market is that it is free. What is the freedom in being forced to buy something? It is a monopoly with enforced consumption. It basically gets the 2 worse things for free market and puts them together. And by the way, I think patent fights such as the CFC, HFC or HCFC are even worse than carbon credits
Saying that plastic bags and such is bad for the planet is ignorance as well. If they take so much as 500 years to decompose, what difference does it make to a planet 4,500,000,000 years old? It only is bad for the animals who get trapped in them, eat them, or whatever. Which IS A GOOD REASON NOT TO THROW THEM ON THE NATURE. I am not saying I don't care with the poor animals, just that it definitely won't destroy the biosphere.
To finish my long post, I will say that I DO NOT like polluting, but that I don't think it has any reasonable effect to Earth's temperature nor that it has any chance of destroying the planet or the biosphere. Last, but not the least, I will say that Piotr is wrong about CO2 emissions being healthy and encouraging bio growth. It only favors photosynthesizing organisms, like plants, and there are usually too few on the cities where they are produced in mass by humans. Our body can only handle certain amounts of the gas, and when it gets accumulate somewhere where humans live it is prejudicial to our health and has usually little trees to use it, meaning local climate changes (no, I am not contradicting myself, local climate is WAY different than global climate, and humans indeed can create heat focuses with buildings, gases and destroying forests. It is strictly local, though) which in some cases make the place inhospitable for humans.
If you have any questions, please do not assume I said anything I did not. Just state your question about my thoughts and I shall explain them. If you have info or different thoughts which put my thoughts in check, please speak up. I do not get angry or anything because you disagree with me.
PS: thoughts directed towards my person are not acceptable to put my thoughts in check. If you are just angry about me, feel free to -1 me, maybe even stalk me for a few days so I get low karma. Just do not presume to win a discussion by talking about the debater instead of the discussed topic. And I WILL use my rights on the forum, defined by the Law, to ask for rightful punishment if you defame me.
Quote from: Mentonin on May 21, 2013, 01:58:07 PM
(...)
I call a lie on that one: 'If we had a sudden increase in CO2 on the atmosphere of about 1500%, which isn't even CLOSE to what even the most pessimist scientist says is happening, Life would go on. Anaerobic bacterias, algae and parasitic beings would populate the earth in a few hundred years. Animals would die, as would humans.'
And on this one: 'Piotr is wrong about CO2 emissions being healthy and encouraging bio growth. It only favors photosynthesizing organisms, like plants, and there are usually too few on the cities where they are produced in mass by humans. Our body can only handle certain amounts of the gas, and when it gets accumulate somewhere where humans live it is prejudicial to our health and has usually little trees to use it, meaning local climate changes (no, I am not contradicting myself, local climate is WAY different than global climate, and humans indeed can create heat focuses with buildings, gases and destroying forests. It is strictly local, though) which in some cases make the place inhospitable for humans.'
CO2 is not toxic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity but it is deadly at 7+% nevertheless, follow the link to read why.
Current concentration of CO2 in atmosphere is around 0.039% which if raised by 1500% becomes a rather non deadly 0.585%.
Nobody needs to die ;)
I agree with the general agenda of your post with the exception of 'we can put anything in the atmosphere and life will go on'.
1500% was a randomly tossed number, but 0.39% is at 30km altitude (and CO2 is heavier than air, so it should be more concentrated where we breath it). In any case, I will search for actual numbers on that. Some cities reportedly have problems because of pollution (stillborn children, anencephalic babies, higher cancer rates, breathing problems), but i am not sure which were the . Constant exposure to levels higher than 2% isn't considered safe, according to your own link (the 7 - 10% is a suffocation issue, and is dangerous even if you breath it for little time).
My "Life would go on" comment was refering to Life as a whole, not human Life. Bacterias and other extremely resilient beings would survive any conditions humans could impose to the whole atmosphere, unless we "import" more toxic material from other planets, likemore sulphur. Using only Earth's resources, though, there would always be beings resilient enough to cope with it, unless we somehow managed to heat Earth extremely (Sun's surface kind of heat). Or to actually eliminate atmosphere, maybe through extreme heat mentioned above and then intense cold, which i don't believe humans would be able to do... Unless given information otherwise, i will keep to my thoughts on this.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 21, 2013, 05:53:01 PM
If you agree that being wasteful in any form is bad for our home
I don't, I have proven that increased CO2 and methane levels, which I assume you mean, are leading to increased biomass, defined as the total weight of living organisms. That is beneficial for humans, if only because we can have more steaks.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 21, 2013, 05:53:01 PM
Look, if we can all agree that being overly wasteful is not good for the planet, what the hell are you guys arguing about?
The first lines of the Wikipedia article on global warming are
Quote
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation
That is cited 4 times. It's not something that is being made up. And, even if as I said - the opposite side to what I am saying ("pollution is bad for the environment/planet/biosphere/animals/humans) is so ridiculous a notion that I don't even understand what your point is saying that carbon dioxide is not heating up the planet and its just magically getting warmer.
If you agree that being wasteful in any form is bad for our home, what point are you trying to make by saying that certain kinds of waste are good for the planet?
1- Wikipedia is not an acceptable font. It is written by biased points of view, and we can't use it as a font unless you are giving actual facts. scientists are 90% sure doesn't give any statistical info, except that someone thought scientists are almost sure about it.
2- I indeed believe in the 'ridiculous notion', about the part of the biosphere and the planet. Please be more thoughtful before simply rejecting other points of view because you can't understand them. In discarding them before you even consider them, you could be blocking it inconsciously. I agree with you about humans and animals though
3- I am not saying anything is good for the planet, i am saying it is not bad. Huge difference here.
4- magicaly getting warmer? We have evidence of the eearth going through much more intense climate changes in much less time than global warmers advertise in ages before humans existed. It is not magically getting warmer, it is being influenced by glaciers, oceans and water in the atmosphere, CO2, O2, vegetal concentration, animal concentration, Sun cycles, orbital interferences, and pretty much everything that happens. I believe human influence in this is not significant, the other factors are much stronger. Magic is not one of the other factors, but I could show you that overall Earth has gone through an average cooling over the last million years, and oceans (the great temperature retainers on earth) are still cooling.
5- As explained, i am not making a point on "good wasting". I am, though, making a point that most of the big Global Warming advertisers are doing it in bad faith and/or lead by others doing it in bad faith, with the intent of making money over people's consciouness and limiting undevelopped companies behind in competitivity.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 21, 2013, 06:06:37 PM
Then you misunderstand the meaning of the word waste.
Quote
Waste
verb (used with object)
to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.
By definition it's impossible for waste to be good, as then it's not waste anymore. That's why companies call them 'bi product' because that implies that it's not bad anymore.
If, as you suggest, even though 90% of the words scientists disagree with you in that excess carbon dioxide heats up the planet because it encourages plant growth, are you opposed to the massive deforestation taking place around the world, because that's pretty destructive to plant growth.
The scientists agree with me that CO2 is correlated with heating up the planet, so you misunderstood. I do not believe there's something wrong with that and we need to tax people to fix it.
Harvest is pretty destructive to plant growth but is pretty constructive for human growth, I prefer human growth.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 21, 2013, 05:56:47 PM
Are you that asinine that you think I am arguing bacteria will not continue to exist if we keep polluting the planet, or that we will all die from carbon dioxide toxicity?
C'mon man.
that is the type of comment i said as being directed o my person, instead of the discussed topic. Again, please refrain from it. And, if you talk about Planet and Biosphere being possibly destroyed by humans, yes, you ARE arguing about bacteria. I did make it clear in my comments that i believe wasting is bad for humans, just not to Earth or Life as a whole. And we won't die by carbon toxicity, as Piotr made clear, we may die from carbon suffocation though, or by other means of pollution. We may also simply deplete our food sources, or have some similar destiny. If you are arguing about Humans only, though, I'll tell you: Global warming won't kill us. We would survive, AND have food, even if the planet heate up some 10 degrees Celsius in average, and the pessimist scientists talk about 1 degree Celsius in 100 years. Also, i ain't sure if you meant insane or some other kind of 'compliment'. Please explain what that word means, as I like to know what people say that i am. And in future discussion, please try to keep your words to what you mean to say (humans, not biosphere)
Quote from: KangaRod on May 21, 2013, 06:16:41 PM
Even if you don't believe that the planet heating up is bad, if you're wrong the results are catastrophic and if you're right, well then nothing changes, so why take the chance?
Because someone has to pay a little more tax? Get your head out man, we can always make more money, we can't make a new planet.
I call the statement of catastrophic results a falsehood
Quote from: Mentonin on May 21, 2013, 06:23:11 PM
Quote from: KangaRod on May 21, 2013, 06:16:41 PM
Even if you don't believe that the planet heating up is bad, if you're wrong the results are catastrophic and if you're right, well then nothing changes, so why take the chance?
Because someone has to pay a little more tax? Get your head out man, we can always make more money, we can't make a new planet.
I call the statement of catastrophic results a falsehood
In formal calling out a lie (or falsehood as you seem to prefer), it is customary to provide logical proof, if only in a form of restating your previous statement or providing a link to it.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 21, 2013, 06:34:32 PM
Listen to what I am saying
I agree, maybe you are right, and maybe carbon dioxide isn't bad for the environment... But if you are wrong (and most empirical evidence suggests that you are) the results would be so catastrophic that its not a chance we should take.
I am not currently saying that it will be catastrophic (even though most scientists think it will be) but I am saying you need to do risk assessment and realize that what you are proposing (of apparently not caring how much CO2 goes into the atmosphere) is not worth the risk.
That is interesting take on assessing risks. May I bring your attention to a rather good book: http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=im0912-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0753515539&IS1=1&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000<1=_top&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=FFFFFF&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr
You can read the Prologue for free, it is eye opening.
@Piotr
I already had stated the falsehood in the catastrophic results, but i will give a link o the ISPCC, which is the main organization supporting global warming, HERE (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_figures_and_tables.shtml#.UZwVOrXFXnE). Please check the 2001 graphs on impacts, adaptation and visibility, and you will see why I call catastrophic results a falsehood. I do not call it a lie, because to lie you need to tell something untrue while knowing the truth, and I believe he thought the truth his group of scientists believe in are indeed of catastrophical results. But here is the proof that it isn't.
Also, on risk assessment, managing companies and personal life is different from having a risk being, even of a very little chance, destroying the whole humanity. Saying that most scientists think it is catastrophic, though, is a falsehood as explained above.
@KangaRod
I will call a falsehood on "most empirical evidence tell you [me and Piotr] are [wrong]" as well. Present them, and i may agree with you. Most of what global warmers say, though, is theoretical and based on simulations (which admittedly may contain mistakes due to not taking into account all variables). I have geological analysis using proxy temperature tests which can say that there were much worse temperature fluctuations in ages past. But, in recent times, here (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt)is a nice graph for you to analyze, and look at the fluctuations we have today and what we had before. We have had a 2ºC fluctuation in 150 years, and that is after the second industrial revolution. Here (http://www.ipcc-data.org/is92/hadcm2_info.html)is the IPCC analysis where it is explicitly written that the trend is of 0.04ºC per century. Which is 1/25 of what i said was the "worst case scenario". Assuming Earth is currently in a natural heating cycle (it will go back to cooling, then heating again, it just does that. As I explained, it is not magic, but related to many facctors such as biomass, geology, atmosphere and sun radiation), and that the Human Being makes it heat up much faster, 0.04ºC per century is very little to be concerning, as it is natural heating + human heating
About calling me asinine - I really expect you to refrain from calling people things. This is a discussion about global warming, pollution and sustainability, + incorporated. This IS NOT a discussion on my intelligence, or anyone else's. I haven't spoken of your person, so do not presume to defame me. I asked it once, VERY clearly, asked it again, and am asking for the third time.
You are rightwhen you say i should have looked for it, though. I did a quick google translate only, and it had yelded nothing. I did search for an english meaning though, and I now know. I would call a lie on that as well, as it is not foolish to have your beliefs, specially when you can, as it is my case, defend it with facts and reference them to you. I am not foolish, nor resemble an ass, so you should be careful with what you say.[/me]
Quote from: Mentonin on May 21, 2013, 09:56:27 PM
Also, on risk assessment, managing companies and personal life is different from having a risk being, even of a very little chance, destroying the whole humanity.
My point is that replacing small risk with big risk is not very wise. If you slow down the economy by 1% you will kill people, same as if you scare them to die in car crashes.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 22, 2013, 08:47:44 AM
I presented Wikipedia and advised you that the quote I was pulling was cited 4 times...
You discounted it and said Wikipedia was erroneous based on your own personal opinions. If 4 cited sources is not good enough for you, you think I would go out and find a 5th?
I apologize if you are an EAL speaker, you present yourself very eloquently, and I had assumed you were just being lazy.
And, once again, I will just affirm that even if I choose to believe you are correct, I don't think that is
A) an excuse to pump needless amounts of anything into the atmosphere, as you are proposing
Or
B) worth the risk to put a few extra bucks in some CEO's pocket.
There is no situation in which you would dare to pretend that pollution is good for mankind, so I will ask you why you are so insistent on proving to me that it is bad.
Your position is such that it is 'neutral' and while one that I disagree with, one I can respect - but I ask you again, even if you are correct, from a purely financial standpoint, is burning more gas, using more paper, and more electricity cheaper or more expensive?
There is absolutely nothing to be gained by taking any position other than "use less" so I don't understand why you would even argue for some sort of middle ground that basically equates to "use less or more, whatever you want."
Being cited 4 times in a single source does not make it 4 sources
I was indeed being somewhat lazy. I apologize again for it
I did NOT, in ANY given moment, propose that we should pump anything to the atmosphere. I actually said I am against it, as it makes human life near those "pumps" dangerous. I said it, and will say again, these can result in breathing diseases, cancer, stillborn and/or anencephalic children. Do not say I proposed anything like this, you are distorting my text
I did not say pollution is good for mankind, and would not dare to say it. I am not trying to prove it is bad for mankind either, this is not the point of my posts. I am trying to prove that apocalyptic heralds based on human-intervention leading to catastrophic results is false, at least when using global warming and ozone levels. Toxicity in the air, water and soil are serious problems though, and I am not arguing about it. Carbon emissions by industries are not enough to make the air, in a global level, hazardous though. We have not discussed soil and water pollution, and I will not delve into that right now.
From a financial standpoint, if you lived in a developing country you would understand that patent fights and climate resolutions break the economical development of the country immensely. Developed countries control the production of most huge barriers to companies, forcing them to pay for the developed countries' industry in order to be "legal". Brazil is, of the industrialized countries, one with the least emissions, and most of it done by multinationals, but UN enforces that it is more important for developing countries to contain their growth pace with less emissions. Financially, it is used to create monopolies and market intervention, which makes the end product cost way more than it should. Most economists would disagree with you saying that burning less gas (and I assume you mean it as means of getting energy out of it) is cheaper. Alternative energy is way more expansive with the technology we have today
About gaining anything with other positioning than "use less", I agree with you on end user level. When you escalate it to companies, "use more" means "grow more, earn more, get better". And although multinationals have other means of doing it, small companies are slowed down by environmental concerns
Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 09:50:44 AM
From a financial standpoint, if you lived in a developing country you would understand that patent fights and climate resolutions break the economical development of the country immensely. Developed countries control the production of most huge barriers to companies, forcing them to pay for the developed countries' industry in order to be "legal". Brazil is, of the industrialized countries, one with the least emissions, and most of it done by multinationals, but UN enforces that it is more important for developing countries to contain their growth pace with less emissions. Financially, it is used to create monopolies and market intervention, which makes the end product cost way more than it should.
This is .loving. evil and illegal under iMtG Law. Logic provided at your request.
And I am still waiting for scientists lists, with 90% of them against me, as well as your empirical evidence, data, information in general.
Stating that what I am saying is pointless, that one would be asinine to agree with me, that one cannot contest your thoughts or that most scientists agree with you doesn't add anything to the discussion, we are trying to expose new ideas and point of views, not defame people here.
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 10:07:11 AMLogic provided at your request.
Please do. I would like to see your reasoning on it
Quote from: KangaRod on May 22, 2013, 08:47:44 AM
I apologize if you are an EAL speaker, you present yourself very eloquently, and I had assumed you were just being lazy.
I assume you are referring to the 3rd party as your response had not much to do with what I was expressing in this thread. In any case, being eloquent or simply put smart ass about things does not make you right. The opposite can be true, one can talk like a moron but still have a true theory. When did you stop stealing money from your mother?
Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 10:10:13 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 10:07:11 AMLogic provided at your request.
Please do. I would like to see your reasoning on it
You can only do to others what they wouldn't want to be done to them if you are dealing punishment. True.
I don't want any third party extorting any tax* on any business between me and my customers. True.
Sales and income taxes are illegal under iMtG Law. So are any other taxes on business between voluntary parties.
Tax* tax is not voluntary.
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 10:13:22 AM
Quote from: KangaRod on May 22, 2013, 08:47:44 AM
I apologize if you are an EAL speaker, you present yourself very eloquently, and I had assumed you were just being lazy.
I assume you are referring to the 3rd party as your response had not much to do with what I was expressing in this thread. In any case, being eloquent or simply put smart ass about things does not make you right. The opposite can be true, one can talk like a moron but still have a true theory. When did you stop stealing money from your mother?
Calm down, Piotr. This is a discussion on sustainability. You are discussing his person, on something related to me, and being aggressive about it.
Also, I think he meant that I was eloquent and used good reasoning, leading him to think that I was a native speaker because my use of the language was good. Leave it by that.
Thirdly, you should pg-9 that .loving. evil comment
Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 10:18:43 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 10:13:22 AM
Quote from: KangaRod on May 22, 2013, 08:47:44 AM
I apologize if you are an EAL speaker, you present yourself very eloquently, and I had assumed you were just being lazy.
I assume you are referring to the 3rd party as your response had not much to do with what I was expressing in this thread. In any case, being eloquent or simply put smart ass about things does not make you right. The opposite can be true, one can talk like a moron but still have a true theory. When did you stop stealing money from your mother?
Calm down, Piotr. This is a discussion on sustainability. You are discussing his person, on something related to me, and being aggressive about it.
Also, I think he meant that I was eloquent and used good reasoning, leading him to think that I was a native speaker because my use of the language was good. Leave it by that.
Thirdly, you should pg-9 that .loving. evil comment
Never been calmer in my life, ;)
I'm simply having fun using the same techniques as my opponents do. Asking questions which are poisonous boxes, without any significant link to the topic of the discussion. You live by the sword, you die by the sword ;)
I still condemn this actions on both sides. If you are unhappy with the way he did something, judge him by the law. I feel bad for a discussion I engaged on to veer into aggression towards others. I can even say I feel offended by it. I felt offended by the asinine comment as well, but dealt with it my way, and unless repeated, no punishment should be issued. I did not feel offended be the comment on eloquence, I actually like to see that I put my opinions out well enough that he felt I am eloquent, even though I do not feel so sure about some parts of my speech.
If it just keeps turning towards a personal offense thread, I will just leave it. I do not feel offended by people saying bad things of me over the Internet, but I fell genuinely offended when people discuss something based on attacks to the other person(people) instead of addressing the subject, that is why I am absent on most online discussions. This one was one I participated because it showed up in my replies because I commented about going off-topic, and at that time I was just checking the new forum section. When I saw the replies I had an itch to rectify the direction this thread was going, because it was looking rather "I think THIS and you are wrong - NO, I think THAT and you are wrong" to me, and I dislike this type of discussion. I accomplished my mission to some degree, but will have no problem leaving because it became a personal offense thread.
You still have to PG that ".loving. evil" comment.
I'm with you, thanks.
Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 11:08:39 AMYou still have to PG that ".loving. evil" comment.
What do you mean? .loving. is already censored?
Not on your post :P
I censored it in my quote only, so as to not create another edited comment. Your post was
"This is .loving.(censored only in my post) evil and illegal by iMtG Law.
Logic provided at request."
On page 3
Wow, must be a bug. I see it as censored, how about anyone else?
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 11:59:10 AM
Wow, must be a bug. I see it as censored, how about anyone else?
Everything is censored
Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 11:33:20 AM
Not on your post :P
I censored it in my quote only, so as to not create another edited comment. Your post was
"This is .loving.(censored only in my post) evil and illegal by iMtG Law.
Logic provided at request."
On page 3
Could be that theme=1 is not doing it. Theme=6 has it on 5th page.
I am using the basic app interface. Maybe beta has a new theme which hasn't it applied?
Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 01:34:07 PM
I am using the basic app interface. Maybe beta has a new theme which hasn't it applied?
Ok, you have 'Leave words uncensored' on. You can change it in theme=1 if you want.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 22, 2013, 05:21:53 PM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
Truth cannot be changed by voting. True or false?
That is probably a wise choice, still it takes only one scientist who is right and can prove it to make all the other scientists' opinions irrelevant.
What is their opinion, btw?
I also do not believe 489 scientists or so represent all climatologists, and most of those statistics are based on the publishers with most acceptation, which is quite obviously the global warming ones (the ones publishing the main advertised subject right now, not against it). Some of them are really considerable, though, and the most contradicting one is the only one outside the graph (I don't know why). It stands alone amongst the mentioned studies though. It it the 2012 one, and the one with most info, including some of what may cause biased ideas. I would say that contesting evidence and trying to prove it is false is what brought most revolutions in science, though. Just take Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Hawkins or many others who said what was believed as incontestable in their time was wrong. Even Columbus did it.
Also, experiences over controllable ambients are not always repeatable, and MANY times do not represent the reality. Scientists do not have the knowledge or technology to experiment considering every variable in Earth. Most experiments done with crop growth in heated earth scenarios do not account for the impact of plants' response to increased CO2 levels, for one example.
I really thank you for taking the time to reference to an article with references though. When I wake up I will look more in-depth though, I found it interesting. I do agree some scientists could have spoken against their beliefs in many of those, but I do not believe it would be more than 20%(extremely high rate, I would say), and it shouldn't change the majority even if the number indeed is that big and all if those speaking against themselves did it in favor of the human influences.
You had me till Columbus. Vikings beat him by half a millennia. just saying.
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on May 23, 2013, 12:26:54 AM
You had me till Columbus. Vikings beat him by half a millennia. just saying.
Yes but they kept it secret, kept it safe. That's not proper science ;)
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on May 23, 2013, 12:26:54 AM
You had me till Columbus. Vikings beat him by half a millennia. just saying.
And native Americans by some thousand years before Vikings. The society Columbus lived in, though, hadn't known any of this, so Columbus couldn't have used this knowledge
Quote from: Taysby on May 23, 2013, 11:37:41 AM
I wonder what happened to kangarod. We can't keep this discussion going without him.
I call a lie on this, my friend.
It doesn't need to be Kanga, though
Quote from: Taysby on May 24, 2013, 12:53:59 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 23, 2013, 03:48:47 PM
Quote from: Taysby on May 23, 2013, 11:37:41 AM
I wonder what happened to kangarod. We can't keep this discussion going without him.
I call a lie on this, my friend.
Well we can't debate if there is no one debating the other side.
Discussion and debate are somewhat different, but in any case even if you agree on the goal you may not agree on means, or you may debate the outcome when goal is reached, or ... ;)
Quote from: KangaRod on May 22, 2013, 09:32:26 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 07:10:05 PM
What is their opinion, btw?
Most of the modern studies seem to show that over 90% of the worlds scientists across all fields agree that the planet is heating up due to human activity.
I agree with that too. Do they claim that warming is due to human activity only, rather than combination of natural processes and human activity? What is the percentage of scientists who agree that this human warming is significant? What is the percentage of scientists who agree that the predicted warming is something bad for human civilisation?
On the article he linked to there is informations about those questions, Piotr
Quote from: Mentonin on May 24, 2013, 06:32:24 AM
On the article he linked to there is informations about those questions, Piotr
Yes, sorry, apart from this one: what is the percentage of scientists who agree that the predicted warming is something bad for human civilisation?