# Snowboarding and global warming/the future



## Guest (Nov 29, 2008)

just stop buying crap that you dont really need.


----------



## rjattack19 (Nov 7, 2008)

in my opinion global warming in a myth. over the last 1000 years the climate has had its highs and lows...personally i think its just foolish to believe that humans have actually changed the climate. right now our climate is at a high point, but in another 1000 years? who knows, we might be in another ice age.:dunno: anyhow we just need to do what we can to protect the environment. simple things tho, like mind your waste, and dont pollute the water. i love being in nature and i would hate to see it destroyed, but as far as global warming goes...:thumbsdown: not buying it


----------



## legallyillegal (Oct 6, 2008)

I hate seeing trees cut down so people can ski and snowboard.

WAIT WHAT

lolwut

wat


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2008)

legallyillegal said:


> I hate seeing trees cut down so people can ski and snowboard.
> 
> WAIT WHAT
> 
> ...


lmao:laugh:


but only uneducated man can think that global warming does not exists. 
yes statistics are exaggerated to make more effect on people. But it does exist.


----------



## rjattack19 (Nov 7, 2008)

i figured i would get a response like that. i am very well educated and have read plenty of books in my life time. its simply an opinion. and as many evidences as you have that supposedly "prove" that global warming is real i can come up with to prove it doesn't. im not trying to make enemies. just stating an opinion


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2008)

im with you rjattack.

maybe you guys should read a book and see that the climate has ALWAYS fluctuated over periods of time. Honestly, it seems to be getting colder around me, maybe its just luck but here in tampa, fl we would be wearing shorts and tshirts up untill january other then a few random cold fronts that would dip us into the 50's at night.. we have been having to cover plants and stuff in early november because of the nights below freezing.


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

Snowolf said:


> we need to reduce CO2 emisions now and stop the increase. Studies show that we have it within our power to reverse the increase in CO2 but not for much longer. We need to utilize other sources of energy production including nuclear power and stop buring coal, oil and gas.


Whatever.

My Klingon speaking friend tells me the world will end December 21, 2012. Something about the Mayan calendar, ancient Chinese books, Nostradamus, solar flares, an asteroid/comet, and a pandemic scabies outbreak.

Buy a Hummer. Club a seal. Don't drink light beer. Have tons of kids. Use as much of the planet as you can because we have just over 4 years to do it. Let's go out consuming and exploiting to the best of our given abilities.
























PS: HAPPY BLACK FRIDAY!


----------



## rjattack19 (Nov 7, 2008)

tim tim tim said:


> im with you rjattack.
> 
> maybe you guys should read a book and see that the climate has ALWAYS fluctuated over periods of time. Honestly, it seems to be getting colder around me, maybe its just luck but here in tampa, fl we would be wearing shorts and tshirts up untill january other then a few random cold fronts that would dip us into the 50's at night.. we have been having to cover plants and stuff in early november because of the nights below freezing.



oh thank god i have some back up. when i checked back up on this thread i thought the forum would be burning me in effige by now lol.


----------



## bakesale (Nov 28, 2008)

I also agree that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Global temperatures fluctuate often throughout the history of the planet, hell once the planet was completely covered in snow and ice. The ice at the poles changes yearly and generally trends with the 13year cycles of the sun. The measurements are there, Co2 levels are up and the global temperature is rising, but no conclusions can be yet drawn from that data, its bad science to refer to 40 years of global Co2 levels and conclude that the earth is dangerously warm and that Co2 levels are higher than they've ever been thus we will all die as a result.

During the Industrial revolution the skies of England were so black from coal burning to stoke steam engines that the temperature was as much as 5 degrees higher than it was before. It is a vastly different picture now.

Last year up at Whistler we had over 50ft of snow up at Whistler, it was amazing. The resorts aren't going anywhere and the snow isn't either. Ski hills have always had to accept the nature of the business is such that they might not be open until as late as mid December and powder days may be frequent or rare.

That being said, it wouldn't hurt anyone to reduce waste and be more fuel efficient.


----------



## rjattack19 (Nov 7, 2008)

i agree 100% that we need to reduce waste. im not saying that the globe isnt getting warmer, and im not saying that humans are helping the cause. i just dont think that we have single handedly changed the climate.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2008)

I Agree again rjattack lol.. I dont feel were helping any situations, its a given fact that we emmit alot of c02 emissions and Im all about the renewable energy and fuel sources, recycling and everything else.. I just dont think there is any global warming out of the ordinary


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2008)

Regardless of why the earth is warming, I think everyone should do their part and reduce emissions and waste. We Americans treat everything like it's *disposable*, when in fact we should be creating things to be *reusable*. Our resources are limited, and it's foolish to think that life will be sustainable here in the next couple hundred years at the rates we consume them.

Besides, I want to be snowboarding when I'm 80.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2008)

global warming =/= change in local weather
global warming is a change in long term weather hence the term *Climate* change


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2008)

kylekilljoy said:


> global warming =/= change in local weather
> global warming is a change in long term weather hence the term *Climate* change


Don`t you think climate change would affect local weather patterns?

--

I agree we should worry about pollution and strive to be more efficient with our resources. 

What I hate is fear tactics and marketing terms like global warming. We may have helped to accelerate this cycle of climate change but the planet is in no danger, the people might be.

OMFG If we don`t clean up our act. BAM!!!!!


----------



## rjattack19 (Nov 7, 2008)

and besides, it has been proven that in the past the climate was MUCH higher than it is today. its part of the earths natural cycle.


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

Whether or not you believe in global warming, you would have to be an idiot to believe our environment isn't suffering. Poisoned waters, dried up creeks, dams causing drought, acid rain, disintegrating coral reefs. All that stuff is right in front of us. No one debates those things. If you don't believe in global warming (I personally don't believe in cheese. Solid milk? Sha right.) you should still do your part for a myriad of other reasons.

I'm not interested in debating the global warming thing because it is so played out and annoying to hear people discuss. But, no one out there is crazy enough not to think our environment is in trouble in many ways. Do your part. Recycle, buy less, drive less and use less power. Stop living in excess and, if technology can keep up, maybe our grand kids will get to see pandas and experience snowboarding and have all the things we have.

EDIT: Just so you know, I treat anyone who says they don't believe in global warming the same way I would treat someone who said, "Hi. I'm in a cult. We worship dirt." I cock my head, say "Ooooh kay," then ignore them completely.


----------



## legallyillegal (Oct 6, 2008)

We're all hypocrites anyways.

I find it funny when snowboarders get all hippie on everyone.


----------



## Rip and Ship (Nov 29, 2008)

This is the earliest I can remember in a very long time that places opened this early in New England.


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

Do the global warming adds to the right make you angry? :laugh:


----------



## mag⋅net⋅ism (Oct 26, 2008)

Joining POW is a pretty good step. It's only part of the very very small solution, but we have to start somewhere. Nice to see one of the most widely respected snowboarders spearhead something of the sort, that can make a difference.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2008)

I thought it wasn't global warming any more.. I thought it was changed to "climate change." Either way, I think it's total bullshit. In the seventies(-ish), scientists told the public they were concerned about global _cooling..._

The planet on which we live has been constantly changing for the passed several million (or billion) years. I don't believe that it's going to have a SET weather pattern. Things are bound to change; perhaps an unknown anomaly has drawn Earth's orbit closer to the Sun. Humans don't KNOW shit about the physics of the universe, so who's to say the problem lies with the human race? Al Gore? Fuck you.


----------



## pipidulce (Oct 3, 2008)

rjattack19 said:


> and besides, it has been proven that in the past the climate was MUCH higher than it is today. its part of the earths natural cycle.


What in the world does it mean when the climate is high? Like we can't reach it without a T-bar?


----------



## rjattack19 (Nov 7, 2008)

pipidulce said:


> What in the world does it mean when the climate is high? Like we can't reach it without a T-bar?



what? i think your trying to make a joke but it wasnt funny


----------



## rjattack19 (Nov 7, 2008)

Flick Montana said:


> Whether or not you believe in global warming, you would have to be an idiot to believe our environment isn't suffering. Poisoned waters, dried up creeks, dams causing drought, acid rain, disintegrating coral reefs. All that stuff is right in front of us. No one debates those things. If you don't believe in global warming (I personally don't believe in cheese. Solid milk? Sha right.) you should still do your part for a myriad of other reasons.
> 
> I'm not interested in debating the global warming thing because it is so played out and annoying to hear people discuss. But, no one out there is crazy enough not to think our environment is in trouble in many ways. Do your part. Recycle, buy less, drive less and use less power. Stop living in excess and, if technology can keep up, maybe our grand kids will get to see pandas and experience snowboarding and have all the things we have.
> 
> EDIT: Just so you know, I treat anyone who says they don't believe in global warming the same way I would treat someone who said, "Hi. I'm in a cult. We worship dirt." I cock my head, say "Ooooh kay," then ignore them completely.



no no no...dont get me wrong please! i am all about conservation and going green and what not. i love nature and i couldnt stand to see it ruined. all im saying is that global warming is a fallacy. i know damn well that humans are polluting the earth and killing thousands of creatures with in our carelessness. soo, that being said i do do my part in careing for the earth by recycleing and conserving energy, but the whole global warming thing...scare tactics at their best.


----------



## FoShizzle (Nov 6, 2008)

2012. 

End Of The World Lololol


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2008)

Actually if you really research it and talk to professionals who study long term climate changes of the earth you'll find that not only are our current Climate changes part of a natural cycle but also that we are actually over due for another Ice Age. 
In the past the earth has spent about 100,000 years ,per Ice Age, in an Ice Age and only around 10,000 years between them. Another interesting fact is that the Climate as a whole can change drastically from a moderate climate (what we currently have) to something like an Ice Age in as little as 30 years.
The earth has gone into Climate changes with Climate temperatures WELL above what they currently are, it's actually called a Dust Bowl.
And who studies and analysis global conditions and environmental trends throughout the earths history? Geologists. Climatology is a young science that lacks a great deal of empirical evidence as of yet. Climatology is to Geology as Sociology is to Psychology. Just look at the accuracy of the weather report 

Also someone brought up the point of slopes opening later in the year and I'm sure less snow by association also. That has more to due with the shift of Winter months than Global warming. It's later in the year before it gets cold because it's later in the year that it gets warm. Where I live it used to be sweater & a coat cold with snow on the ground before Thanksgiving. And it was warming up again by mid to late March. It doesn't start warming up now until around the end of April and it doesn't really start getting cold her until around the end of Dec.


As for the whole Green House Effect/scare, it's political not scientific. Look at the Geological records. Also if you really want to know there was a proven paper done by a German (I think) scientist/mathematician that shows how the mathematics that originally proved the Green house effect are wrong. Including one very solid and universally proven physical and mathematical fact exists that shows that CO2 does not cause atmospheric warming. CO2's temperature *always* trails the temperature of the other atmospheric gases. Technically the leading atmospheric gas that would contribute to Global Warming is actually H2O, water vapor.

Interesting Article on Green House

And before you go hammering away at me for a lack of evidence to support my stance, I'll edit and post the names and stuff after my Geology class monday lol It's been 3 months since we covered this stuff lol


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2008)

I bet there is lots of nice dry powder during an ice age.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2008)

stnd said:


> I bet there is lots of nice dry powder during an ice age.


yeah if their aren't any blizzards.
it would be so wonderfull , an ice age , finnaly some snow in this fucked up little country


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2008)

The POW website is good. Its nice that people care about preservation. Personally I think, that we are wrecking are world right now and global warming is happening (at least in increased levels) but, It's just an opinion.Imagine snow everywhere if there was an ice age. But I would miss summer sports and stuff to though. Has anyone ever been in a artificial snowdome?(What does it feel like compared to real snow?)


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

I think the term global warming is trending away. Since the actual effects would be different in some places. Europe would have an ice age if the warm water conveyor in the ocean stopped like scientists say it could. Global warming is a terrible term to use. I don't see why we can't just call it environmental damage. Weather change is only one of many problems we face, I don't think all of those problems can be lumped together with the term global warming. :dunno:

I personally care more about deforestation and loss of wildlife than I do about temperature change. I think if you work toward fixing a lot of other problems like deforestation, car and factory pollution and reckless mining practices you will inherently fix climate change.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2008)

d. all the above.

human waste is effecting the atmosphere, causing a warming effect; in addition to the already present climate changes that occur naturally over time.

and some kind of radicalness is going to happen in 2012.

and the correct term is hippiecrit.


----------



## mag⋅net⋅ism (Oct 26, 2008)

N~R~G said:


> d. all the above.
> 
> human waste is effecting the atmosphere, causing a warming effect; in addition to the already present climate changes that occur naturally over time.
> 
> ...


Hippiecrit. Ha ha! 

I don't know why it has to be so damn trendy? Like there's something uncool or stupid about doing minimal damage to the planet that supports us? It's ok to suck dry every non-renewable resource and rape any landscape offering renewable alternatives?? I don't buy it. As riders -- just riders, excluding for a moment all the day-to-day stuff -- there's so much we can do to help. Non-CFC waxes; reusing/recycling Gortex, carpooling to the hill, buying boards from FSC-certified manufacturers. It's not like any single act is going to _reverse_ the effects of climate change, but there's a lot we can do to make our ride around the sun a lot more comfortable and sustainable. It's pure laziness and selfishness that keeps people from making the right decisions for the environment when they know better.


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

I just want to say how refreshing it is to see boarders who really do seem to care about the environment. When your hobby relies on snow and trees, you do have to care a little bit, but most of the people here seem pretty with it. I'm impressed. :thumbsup:

My other hobby includes cars and some of the people I know in those groups think the environment is expendable. You'd think the electric or HFC car was the apocalypse, hehe.


----------



## Jenzo (Oct 14, 2008)

The correct term to use is Climate Change.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

George Carlin said:


> "We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?
> 
> I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. *Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.*
> 
> ...


RIP Mr. Conductor...


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

Yes, getting your environmental advice from a comedian who claimed fame by being obnoxious and swearing a lot. :thumbsup:

No offense to Dr. Carlin, but environmentalists DO care about everything else on this planet. Even if we wipe out all life on the world, it will go on. Life will come around again. But it isn't our place to say what life deserves to live and what life doesn't. We should protect what is here now, not say, "Screw it. Deer aren't important. Cut down the trees."

A real environmentalist should display altruism, a trait that animals on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder don't have. And anyways, is it so selfish to want to live on a clean planet? I guess you'd be ok with someone pissing in your coffee?


----------



## BRsnow (Jan 26, 2008)

Seriously people throw cigarettes on the ground, wrappers, trash every where and you all worry about Global Warming...perhaps picking up after yourselves is a good place to start and then move onto saving the world...


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

Good lord I hate the term "Global Warming" so much...


----------



## Jenzo (Oct 14, 2008)

climate mofu'n change, bitches


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

BRsnow said:


> Seriously people throw cigarettes on the ground, wrappers, trash every where...


Here's my tangent from Climate Change. It is part of the overall problem of taking care of what we have and how people differ in feeling the need to. 

At 5 pm on a weekend the parking lot at my area looks like the top layer of a landfill. It burns me that these slobs will set their fast food garbage on the ground next to their car and drive off. WTF!! The ravens love it, but it drives me batshit crazy. Can't you throw it away when you get home or drop it off at the trash can at the edge of the lot. Does this happens everywhere? I can't comprehend how you can be in the alpine environment and litter.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

BRsnow said:


> Seriously people throw cigarettes on the ground, wrappers, trash every where and you all worry about Global Warming...perhaps picking up after yourselves is a good place to start and then move onto saving the world...


i never flick a butt on the ground unless it flies outta my hand from the car window. the amount of cigarette butts on the ground disgusts me. and if i don't flick my butts then it's highly unlikely i throw any other type of trash on the ground. 

but i get what you're saying. i see it all the time at music festivals. hippies can be some trashy fuckers. but then again, we're not all hippies  :cheeky4:


----------



## WhistlerBound (Aug 24, 2008)

Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get. Global climate change is huge in scope and it takes a long time for collective environmental changes to be represented reliably as a trend at a global level.

If the Pacific NW had absolutely no snow for 10 winters in a row, it's effect on the global climate may well be negligible if somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere it snowed where it usually doesn't for 10 winters. That's weather at work, not necessarily climate change. Mind you, that sort of change could devastate the local regions.

I'm sure the human population has some effect on the global climate. How large is that effect? I have no idea, but it must be considered in the terms of other natural events that also have (arguably) detrimental effects on our planet. At what point do we say that this is the climate we should aim to maintain as the ideal? 10, 50, 100 years ago? 500 years ago maybe? How far are we prepared to go to do that? Reduce the global population from 6+ billion to 1 billion maybe?

Sure, we should minimise our footprint, for no other reason than it's the responsible thing to do, but even this is no easy task, let alone trying to "stabilise" a global climate.

On the other hand, trash is trash, and people who act irresponsibly are just dicks.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

I think global warming is a myth also, the resorts near me have record snow for November so far.


----------



## Jenzo (Oct 14, 2008)

how bout the empty beer cans and boxes that seem to prevail in hill lots


----------



## malkinfleury (Dec 1, 2008)

Grizz said:


> Here's my tangent from Climate Change. It is part of the overall problem of taking care of what we have and how people differ in feeling the need to.
> 
> At 5 pm on a weekend the parking lot at my area looks like the top layer of a landfill. It burns me that these slobs will set their fast food garbage on the ground next to their car and drive off. WTF!! The ravens love it, but it drives me batshit crazy. Can't you throw it away when you get home or drop it off at the trash can at the edge of the lot. Does this happens everywhere? I can't comprehend how you can be in the alpine environment and litter.


I agree, we should pick up our stuff, but honestly, what good does it do putting it into a garbage can? it gets thrown on the ground somewhere else, we need to start with getting rid of landfills, not putting it into a trash can so it can be thrown on the ground somewhere else.

Also, I'm assuming most of you eat meat, you can't go and blame all this stuff about animal numbers decreasing because of global warming or whatever you want to call it. There are a lot of animals going away because of hypocritical humans...


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

_



The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

Click to expand...

_this is entirely the most salient fact of this topic.

for all those who would find solace from _'tut tutting'_ at the litter bug failings of human nature; i say STFU and grab a bin liner and go right some wrongs.

your whining is not likely to bring about an altruistic change to people's behaviour.... it runs counter to all of our species' inherent instincts. you need to be the change you wish to see in this world.

the ONLY way a more environmentally aware attitude has been fostered / manipulated into the minds of people these days, has been thru economic coercion.... higher tax for polluters, lower fees for 'green products'.

climate change is true.... sorry guys it is. has this whole 'global warming', 'hug a hippie', 'save a tree' type hype been created to make Al Gore and co even more wealthy? of course it has! every charity is a bidnis filled with people getting a salary from their efforts. 'save the planet' is no different.

have humans been the cause of this climate change? perhaps. but we've not been around for long enough to know for sure. but is it in OUR own best interests to change our ways to be more *intuned *with the spinning rock we live on and are dependent upon? of course it damn well is.

so don't stress over the reasons for why and the motives of other's; just do what is right. *leave it as you found it.*


----------



## malkinfleury (Dec 1, 2008)

Snowolf said:


> Our resort has an extensive recycling program; we have bins for glass, metal and paper and the local community sends recycling trucks to get this. If these slobs would put the crap where it belongs, very little would end up in the landfill. In addition, in Oregon and Washington, we have an extensive waste to energy system where burnable trash is used to generate electrical power..not great for the CO2 problem, but it beats landfills and we are moving toward full scale commercial composting. The one thing I have to say for Oregon and Washington is that we do act as well as talk when it comes to this.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure where you are going here. I am taking it to mean that we should`nt eat meat. Not going to argue that point one way or the other, but the extinction event that we are in is actually more pronounced that the one the that happened 65 million years ago. In this even as in that one, many of these creatures are not in our food chain, it isn`t us eating them that is killing them off. It is out poor stewardship of the land along with these other factors such as climate change and deforestation (partly for agriculture, I grant you).


what im getting at is that people are complaining bout animals dying and stuff, but we're not doing anything to help it, think about japan, they're slaughtering whales over there for their skin, but what are we doing about it? NOTHING, people need to stand up and do something, not sit back and wait for everything to go away before we do something.


----------



## malkinfleury (Dec 1, 2008)

Snowolf said:


> Thanks for the clarification...I cound not agree with you more strongly....:thumbsup:


thanks  i thought i was gonna get pounded for something haha, it seems to happen to me a lot


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

whales..... an interesting mammal. one which we know comparatively little about. i think hunting them is fine. but industrial strength anything is a cue for disaster.

our technological methods of harvesting have gotten so efficient, that they are no longer sustainable. for me personally, i say sod the whales! save the sharks!

apex predators are vastly more vital to an ecosystem than pelagic water sifters!


----------



## malkinfleury (Dec 1, 2008)

PaoloSmythe said:


> whales..... an interesting mammal. one which we know comparatively little about. i think hunting them is fine. but industrial strength anything is a cue for disaster.
> 
> our technological methods of harvesting have gotten so efficient, that they are no longer sustainable. for me personally, i say sod the whales! save the sharks!
> 
> apex predators are vastly more vital to an ecosystem than pelagic water sifters!


are you serious? if we know "comparatively little about" why would it be fine to hunt them? why not try to find stuff out about them, maybe they have magical powers, but we'll never know cuz they're going extinct( the magical powers thing was a joke)


----------



## WhistlerBound (Aug 24, 2008)

PaoloSmythe said:


> ... for me personally, i say sod the whales! ...


Hmm, I sense a "lively" debate in the wind ...


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

malkinfleury said:


> are you serious? if we know "comparatively little about" why would it be fine to hunt them? why not try to find stuff out about them, maybe they have magical powers, but we'll never know cuz they're going extinct( the magical powers thing was a joke)


if we know so little about them, why would we feel inclined _not _to hunt them?

point is, these are pelagic creatures who inhabit an area we seldom, if ever, visit. we might presume a risk of extinction due to the fewer interactions that we have with them, but unbeknownst to us, there could be a vast and heaving orgy of cetaceans in the center of the ocean which we have no clue of.

and so once again, we see efforts to sustain a population being based upon our personal interaction of. as ever, we presume what we know to be _the be all and end all _and that simply isn't true.

for all of the ethical foresight we allege to have at our disposal, humanoids are still animalistic in nature and as such, part of the evolutionary process.

we will hunt and destroy until ultimately we will destroy ourselves. you can choose to fight against it if you like, but if there is a suggestion that any effort is above self serviance, then you are deluded.


----------



## malkinfleury (Dec 1, 2008)

PaoloSmythe said:


> if we know so little about them, why would we feel inclined _not _to hunt them?
> 
> point is, these are pelagic creatures who inhabit an area we seldom, if ever, visit. we might presume a risk of extinction due to the fewer interactions that we have with them, but unbeknownst to us, there could be a vast and heaving orgy of cetaceans in the center of the ocean which we have no clue of.
> 
> ...


what's the point in killing them?


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

malkinfleury said:


> what's the point in killing them?


primarily: food, fuel, evolutionary maintenance of the herd....

secondarily: job maintenance, cultural integrity, local economic sustainment....

tertiarily: give hippies something to bitch about, give charities like Greenpeace a cause to gain finance for....


----------



## YanTheMan (Nov 10, 2008)

Global warming is a sad sight to see.

It has clearly affected the ice in the arctic.


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

malkinfleury said:


> I agree, we should pick up our stuff, but honestly, what good does it do putting it into a garbage can? it gets thrown on the ground somewhere else, we need to start with getting rid of landfills, not putting it into a trash can so it can be thrown on the ground somewhere else.


Minimizing the volume of trash would be ideal. If it's already created at least these bastards can put it where it belongs, in a landfill not a parking lot. Hell they could even keep the bag clean and recycle it. Same goes for the 12 and 24 boxes and beer bottles.


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

one perfect example for the twisted and self serving ineffectuality of modern day, fashionable causes, is the fight against litter bugs.

one pivotal example being chewing gum. good god, the sheer amount of money and lip service given to the humble stick of Wrigleys. local govs spend millions on steam blasting away bits of gum. entire countries (well at least one) have banned the possession of it altogether and others hand out huge fines if you gob it out on to the ground.

the charge is for littering, but SFW? i mean look at what you are _polluting_.... more often than not, a giant swathe of either tarmac or concrete slab! as if that is 'the natural world which needs preserving'.

it never ceases to amaze me, on how moronic some people can be, when they can protest the dropping of a biodegradable cup or carton, whilst rubber stamping the permission for yet another building development or super highway.

and then we are conditioned to parrot their point of view as if it ever held any validity or credability in the first place. 

reconkulous!


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

PaoloSmythe said:


> tertiarily: give hippies something to bitch about, give charities like Greenpeace a cause to gain finance for....


Anyone seen that show Whale Wars? The self-absorption of the crew is fantastic. That and they're all astonishingly incompetent, none of them know what they're doing, the best of them just have a vague idea.

It's good stuff.


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

PaoloSmythe said:


> for all those who would find solace from _'tut tutting'_ at the litter bug failings of human nature; i say STFU and grab a bin liner and go right some wrongs.


So since I've picked up many bin liners worth of trash from our mountains, rivers and beaches I can say STFU? My issue is I wish there weren't so many others wrongs to right. 



> ...it runs counter to all of our species' inherent instincts. you need to be the change you wish to see in this world.


I don't believe it's our natural instinct to pollute. 



> the ONLY way a more environmentally aware attitude has been fostered / manipulated into the minds of people these days, has been thru economic coercion.... higher tax for polluters, lower fees for 'green products'.


Great start but I don't think it is the only way.




> so don't stress over the reasons for why and the motives of other's; just do what is right. *leave it as you found it.*


If we can figure out how to get everyone "doing what is right" and "leaving it as you found it" we will be in a better place. The first step is understanding why they aren't doing it. The second would be figuring out how to convince them it's in everyone's best interest to do so. Financial benefit would be a start but becoming more environmentally aware for the planetary benefits it brings should be the goal.


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

PaoloSmythe said:


> whilst rubber stamping the permission for yet another building development or super highway.


Now we are starting to approach the main issue. Why are these things necessary?


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Grizz said:


> Now we are starting to approach the main issue. Why are these things necessary?


Infrastructure to make our lives easier and better.


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

stnd said:


> Infrastructure to make our lives easier and better.


In the last 20 years life hasn't become easier or better because of infrastructure growth. It's pretty much the same. Why?


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

So, big question here. Has anyone changed their way of living based on this thread? 

People are so stuck in their ways and convinced in whatever they want to believe in that actually bringing about change can't be accomplished with reasoned debate. Unless your favorite football player or celebrity says, "Dude, I'm totally an environmentalist. One of my 14 car is, like, a Prius and stuff," odds are you'll never become environmentally responsible.

There are so many things wrong with extinction hunting. Saying, "Screw the whales! Eat em!" until they are all dead flies in the face of nature. The environment is specifically designed NOT to lead to the loss of a single species. Sure, the world will recover even if all life is wiped out, but why take it to that point? Why does humanity have to be the next cataclysm?

The apathy is the most appalling part. How can you NOT want to help the dying species on our world? How can you see a tiger in person at the zoo and NOT want to keep them alive in the wild? How can you hear a whale song and not want that to stay on our planet? I seriously don't get it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Grizz said:


> In the last 20 years life hasn't become easier or better because of infrastructure growth. It's pretty much the same. Why?


What does the last 20 years have to do with it, infrastructure has made our lives easier and better. In my city for example, the population is growing and new developments are popping up and roads to accommodate for this. Telecommunications and the internet are built on infrastructure, have they not made your life easier in some way? As for making life better, that can be debated.



Flick Montana said:


> So, big question here. Has anyone changed their way of living based on this thread?
> 
> People are so stuck in their ways and convinced in whatever they want to believe in that actually bringing about change can't be accomplished with reasoned debate. Unless your favorite football player or celebrity says, "Dude, I'm totally an environmentalist. One of my 14 car is, like, a Prius and stuff," odds are you'll never become environmentally responsible.
> 
> ...


"The environment is specifically designed NOT to lead to the loss of a single species." Not so sure about this one.

If deer or whales were to be extinct I would not know until the news told me about it. My life is not affected whether they exist or not. That does not mean I "want" them gone, just that I wouldn't really notice.

And people do participate more and more. From home recycling, to using reusable grocery bags, etc. It will take time, the electric will come. Not sure if it is in Cali or where but there is a huge plan for the implementation of electric car infrastructure (charging stations, battery swaps, etc). It just takes time, and you're going to have to wait.


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

stnd said:


> the population is growing and new developments are popping up and roads to accommodate for this.


Ding, Ding, Ding!
And that is the underlying problem of almost all issues threatening our planet (religion would cover the rest). The reason all the new infrastructure doesn't make our lives easier or better is the population increases at the same rate so the net result is 0. 

All this growth has to be fueled by something and take place somewhere so open spaces and natural resources take the hit.

In the USA the government and media promote "Growth" (GNP, Infrastructure) as good for the economy and our citizens. I think we need to move from seeing growth as good, to a more conservation oriented, sustainable based economy.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Grizz said:


> Ding, Ding, Ding!
> And that is the underlying problem of almost all issues threatening our planet (religion would cover the rest). The reason all the new infrastructure doesn't make our lives easier or better is the population increases at the same rate so the net result is 0.
> 
> All this growth has to be fueled by something and take place somewhere so open spaces and natural resources take the hit.
> ...


You hit another point there. Cutting down forests and ruining the environment raises GDP while planting trees and caring about the environment does nothing. Kinda whack.


----------



## legallyillegal (Oct 6, 2008)

The only way you can sustain a growing population is through growth.


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

legallyillegal said:


> The only way you can sustain a growing population is through growth.


Exactly the problem. 

The resources and suitable human habitat areas of the Earth are finite so there is a limited amount of human growth and development that can occur. Eventually you are going to hit a point when the quality of life for most people starts to decrease. How long off is that point, 1000 years, 100 years or tomorrow? I'd guess sooner than later.

The fighting over oil is going to be nothing compared to the fight over fresh water.


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

If your life isn't affected by some of the amazing animals out there then that is your loss. And besides, though not directly, you life would be influenced by the loss of a major species. In Indiana, the local wolves were hunted until none were left. Then there was a deer explosion and the population grew 300% in one year. Accidents involving deer went up noticeably. I bet none of those people who lived in a new housing addition which was placed where acres of woods used to be considered wolves important to their lives. Until they hit one and got injured and their insurance jumped.

We're all affected by other life in some way or another. Apathy and ignorance lead to a blissful life. Sometimes I wish I were so lucky.


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

Some of those old movies like Fortress seemed so stupid when I was a kid, but now they actually look prophetic, lol. Policing baby-making? Scary future. I'm ok with one kid, but I'd like to have two. Then, I see people with 8 or 9. Or that stupid show about the couple with 18 kids and I wonder what is wrong with people? Get snipped!


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2008)

newton's law : what goes up must go down, and what goes down must go up.
(PS: I did not mean any offense to anyones beliefs)
Maybe humans are just animals.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2008)

Has anyone ever seen the discovery channel show were people run out of oil and freeze, starve(spoiled food) don't get enough manufactured goods ect?


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

Grizz said:


> So since I've picked up many bin liners worth of trash from our mountains, rivers and beaches I can say STFU? My issue is I wish there weren't so many others wrongs to right.


you can say whatever, but it will be of little use. in the meantime, inspire others by example, whilst feeling better about yourself. 

take the lead and let actions speak louder than words. your efforts are a step in the right driection, yelling STFY etc is not.



> I don't believe it's our natural instinct to pollute.


perhaps not, but it is a consequence of our inherent capacity to act selfishly.



> Financial benefit would be a start but becoming more environmentally aware for the planetary benefits it brings should be the goal.


long term objectives will never be perceived over short term gain.

sadly economic coercion is merely open to abuse and corruption. i think there is a greater value in social stigma. the casting of shame upon wrongdoers i think would be far more a compelling incentive to toe the commonly accpeted line.


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

Flick Montana said:


> There are so many things wrong with extinction hunting. Saying, "Screw the whales! Eat em!" until they are all dead flies in the face of nature. The environment is specifically designed NOT to lead to the loss of a single species.


sincerely.... buh!!?

do you think the lions on the savanna would give a toss if their next meal was the last gazelle in africa?

extinction is the pivotal aspect of nature; it drives evolution via the 'battle of the fittest'. i guess it comes down to what you consider to be 'nature'.



> The apathy is the most appalling part. How can you NOT want to help the dying species on our world? How can you see a tiger in person at the zoo and NOT want to keep them alive in the wild? How can you hear a whale song and not want that to stay on our planet? I seriously don't get it.



i agree that species ought to be preserved. there is a profound justification behind maintaining diversity of all organism, and not just the big eyed, furry or singing varieties. all i am saying is so what? the only harm in rendering a speices extinct is on our own conscience. we ultimately are the only things to suffer.

and so once more, we find that our underlying motive is self serving.
and so how can we NOT say "fuck the whales, eat them all, please ourselves!"


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

Grizz said:


> Ding, Ding, Ding!
> And that is the underlying problem... we need to move from seeing growth as good, to a more conservation oriented, sustainable based economy.


i completely and totally agree.

as if the blanketing of the planet in mile after mile of concrete and tarmac weren't bad enuff, i see so much expansion in the form of new buildings on the outskirts of cities, whilst myriad structures lie derelict towards the centers.

there is so much opportunity to make good those things which have been flagged to fall by the way side, that any new building is just surplus to requirement, if it weren't for the shining new facade.

i feel it is a crime against the population to condone the construction of any new build when there are sites of reconstruction laying dormant. and any such development ought to be intune with the environment not inspite of it.

biodegradable buildings yo!


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

Snowolf said:


> Right now there are 6.8 billion people on the planet, at current rates that will be over 7 billion by 2012, 12 billion by 2050 and 384 billion by 2300. The Earth simply can not sustain human populations of that magnitude.


well then thank 'god' for pestilence and warfare! 

humans are a self regulating entity. just like every other 'natural ecosystem'. they die out? we die out? the planet remains. so what are we trying to save exactly, with all of this eco-awareness??:dunno:


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

You're more patient than me, Snowwolf. It's like talking to a wall. I'm out.


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

Snowolf said:


> As for saving....while we are just animals amongst other animals, we have the capacity to understand mortality and can reason. If we were but dumb field animals without any self awareness, you would be correct.


i AM correct. 

if you wish to suggest otherwise, then you must first overcome the wealth of evidence set before you, in the form of the things that provokes the likes of Flick Montana to complain so passionately.

we presume that 'dumb field animals' are bereft of reason or comprehension of life's mortality... but what if they are simply apathetic?

ultimately, the net result is the same. 

irrespective of our failings, or their inabilities, the net result is identical and so how are we different? our having awareness simply doesn't mean shit.



> Our technological abilities give us the power to beat the odds and not self regulate as other animals do.


sorry but this is bollocks. our technology allows us to compensate for our biological failings. but then it is the genetic codings which gives sharks their jaws, lions their claws, virus their capacity to replicate, humans their technology.

all are used to survive. how can we presume superiority?



> Because of this, we have the power to take out the entire biosphere with us to the point that we can if we so choose make the planet devoid of life for a very, very long time.


note: no other species in the planet's history has displayed the capacity to kill its own kind more so than _**** sapiens_. 

i repeat, how are we fit to save anything if we cannot save ourselves. (a point already made far more eloquently by a Carlin quote.)



> The flip side of this coin is that with that same power, we can, if we look, see into the future and make needed changes to not only be self regulating, but self sustaining in balance with our biosphere.


and here is the crux of the matter. the 'if we' hope springs eternal.

point is, until we do, it will count for shit. it seems that nothing will be done to safeguard a future unless there is an element of instant gratification.

if this is the case, then do we REALLY have reason, rationality, the capacity of foresight, technological strengths to divert the future?

you and i and myriad others are a minority in our species, when looking to want to make amends of our planet killing ways. and as such, we are mere freak mutations.

the destiny of the majority is self annihilation. i see no other plausible long term outcome. there is simply not the will to act in a preventative measure. it will be the end of our species and frankly, speaking for this planet as a whole, it is the single best thing which could happen to it.



> It is only through apathy, selfishness, ignorance and possibly the worst intellectual crime of all; cynicism, that we can allow our species to destroy itself and many others along the way.


but if the intent sincerely was to save the planet, then suicide would be the noblest act of all!

so let's cut the shit. all of this ecological awareness is for self preservation.

until we can call it what it really is, how can we even hope to pursue its true objective?


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2008)

> profound justification behind maintaining diversity of all organism, and not just the big eyed, furry or singing varieties.


Ultimately, I think we will chose what we (as humans) view is worth protecting(and what is valued). I don't think someone trying to get funding for the mosquitoe, will ever get more funding than a person holding a cute fuzzy tiger cub. I guess I think that we will chose what we value but not necessarily the best decisions.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2008)

I'm happy I'm in Canada.

Area: 9,984,670 km2
Pop: 33.5 Mil
Resources: Plenty

And with a little help from climate change we might get a nicer climate lawl. Funny thing is people here care so much about the environment and we are but a rounding error of the total world population.


----------



## legallyillegal (Oct 6, 2008)

Plenty of resources, but you don't have any control of them.


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

fuzzysnowboard said:


> Ultimately, I think we will chose what we (as humans) view is worth protecting(and what is valued). I don't think someone trying to get funding for the mosquitoe, will ever get more funding than a person holding a cute fuzzy tiger cub. I guess I think that we will chose what we value but not necessarily the best decisions.



precisely! any suggestion that acts in environmentalism are altruistic or charitable... are for the greater good, the future generations, the fekkin planet and all bogus.

it is entirely about pleasing oneself.

recognise this fact and then find yourself more able to act effectively.


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

stnd said:


> I'm happy I'm in Canada.
> 
> Area: 9,984,670 km2
> Pop: 33.5 Mil
> Resources: Plenty


the problem tho is that most / all of those resources are only accessible via open cast mining. good bye forests, good bye fresh water systems. hello massive pollution in the form of black water lakes and effluent rich run off.

and with the majority of your cities becoming ever greater microcosms of inward immigrations, you are likely to soon feel over crowded, because despite the size of your land mass, most is uninhabitable.... cue more pollution of 'natural' environments due to human expansion.

oh dear.


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

an interesting tit bit:

guess who was the first political party in the entire world, to first promote environmentalism policies.

identification of this might be reflective of the underlying mentality of those who so adamantly promote it.

a clue: 1933


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

Holy goddamn moly! 

Between Kri$h doing little more than cheerleading and Flick giving up on things before they'd even begun…. I thought all hope of an online arguement, even for the most eloquent contributor,  was dead.

Point is, preservation of this world is something I care about and thus (egocentrically) believe I know something about. However I also believe we as a species, are light years away from appreciating the ture underlying philosophy of such an effort and thus are even further away from ever realising it.

Thank god for nazis!



Snowolf said:


> Look, not all of us who care about the environment are Fascists about it. In fact, I actually revile the word "environmentalist" because it has this extremist eco terrorist connotation to it.


Once you have come to terms with having to rid yourself of semantical niceties, you will see Mr Wolf that a fascistic attitude is the only thing able to achieve the hopes of environmentalists / conservationists / hippies / whatever you choose to call them.

I can appreciate and indeed agree with your definition of conservationist versus environmentalist…… however your position is obscured by the ambiguities raised by terms such as 'needlessly destructive' and 'wasteful ways'…..

Places like Valdez AK owe its very 'existence' (in the human mind) to the oil industry and its inherent risks and indeed disasters. Regions such as those around the athabasca would remain categorised as 'butt phuck no where' if it weren't for the mining riches its natural resources offers.

So when you consider 'destruction', who are you to say it is 'needless'? 
And as you ferry your juggernaut cargo around, are you likely to claim that your exhaust emissions are 'wasteful'?

Of course not. Because such things keep food on your table and a roof over your head. So how can you argue that something you have not got a vested interest in, ought to be prohibited?

Sounds more than a bit fascistic to me old chap!



> It just so happens that acting in my own self interest to not destroy the biosphere I depend upon, all other species benefit as well. I need not put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger to help save nature, I can choose to alter the way I live and learn to work in harmony with nature.


But your choices, as committed as they may be, still place a burden on the environment which you claim to want to protect. For you, this is a necessary evil. To others, this is one compromise too many; and for others still, it is a compromise of inadequacy.

What allows you to presume that your way is preferred? Is it not better to pull the plug by acknowledging that as a collective, the species of **** sp has been the single worst biotic event to befall this planet? If you agree, then what is the solution?

The obvious solution might be dimissed as 'extreme'. But in the context of that which it serves to remedy…. Is it?



> Sure, we are`nt being very efficient about it...yet, but it beats sitting on the side lines doing nothing and yelling "it wont work!"


Oh this is painfully dismissive. You sling arrows at my heart and they do hurt mr wolf. Sincerely they do.

You might be of the opinion that to do something, even if it is ineffectual is better than doing nothing.

However I am of the conviction that we are no longer afforded enuff time for 'trial and error'. We need to stop. Think. Plan and THEN act.

We no longer have time to convince the masses of what needs to be done, only to be found to be wrong. 
This would require us to earn trust and credability just to get back to square one! 
Those industies who currently get rich from doing terrible things to this spinning rock, do not deserve such favour.



> I choose to dream and try to inspire others to dream and together we might slowly start making a difference.


Fine. Dream all that you want. In the meantime, people are awake and trying to affect a change in reality, instead of giving themselves props for being able to perceive some form of fictitious utopia that gets further out of reach with every passing day spent on whimsy.

Thank fuck for nazis! They dreamt of a world free of zion. Did it happen?

your turn....


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

Snowolf said:


> By "needlessly destructive" I refer to methodology. Take clear cutting as an example. Timber companies that administer clear cutting can do this is a couple of ways, The greedy, "I don't give a damn" types go in a leave a rutted, twisted mess of stumps and debris that fosters erosion and never recovers properly.
> 
> Then there are timber companies who will administer a clear cut that take the time to restore the land and replant:



Oh mr wolf. With much respect, I appreciate how emotive imagery might convey a message to the heart of some, but such fails to impress me; With regret, it seems that I have developed something of a cold heart; 

From having been on the ground in places such as rain forest malaysia, to witness the destruction of absolutely pristine ancient virgin rain forest, only so an expansion of palm oil plantations can be facilitated… well it kinda brings new perspectives…. But I get your point. However, when being specific to your examples...

Fact is, clear cutting which leaves tree stumps behind ensures at least some erosion prevention as the tree roots shore up the substrate. And debris is detritus, which can sustain no end of macro fauna and flora. The complete and clinical removal of everything is the worst situation. And the replacement of indiginous plants with agriculture is not much better I am afraid.



> In the second case, it is using the land in such a way as a farmer would plant, harvest and replant. This is how I base my determination on what is needless destruction and what is "acceptable collateral damage"


I would have to disagree. The removal of a tree only to plant another, is as bad as if you had simply left a barren waste ground. This is getting closer to the over riding point I am labouring to get across. This should never be acceptable to anyone who considers themselves supportive of conservation.



> I don`t see humans as the scourge to the planet as you do. We are just as much a part of the natural evolution of species as any other animal. The difference is we can choose to act to either destroy our planet or save it.


This is a contradiction in terms. Either we do what we do coz it is natural and thus are absolved from any criticism of future repurcussions (and so let the chips fall where they may), or we need to fight what comes naturally in order to indulge in that most unatural of behaviours; altruism.

And still I see you citing the bullshit which is 'save the planet'. ('bullshit' used to convey sentiment in oppostion to the term itself and not against you for choosing to use it)



> I actually see your point about the need to impose some Fascism in order to do what is required to save ourselves. We can`t even get people to agree that the climate is in fact warming (never mind the reason) regardless of how much data is presented. Hell, many right winger think Al Gore is Hitler re incarnate and all he did was suggest that we had better act. Imagine if he legislated it....


Those looking to ensure a better future really do need to think before they act or even speak.

If they had the capacity to do this, then the term 'global warming' would have never been penned in the first place. 
This serves as the perfect example of how an opposition can use a half thought against it creators.



> saying screw it why try...my bad.


Things this important are never over until the dying breath. This planet is everything we depend on and it goes way beyond trivialities such as sliding sideways on snow (yeah I said it). But what hope do we have of fighting this cause, if we cannot even be honest about or come to terms with what we are fighting for?


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2008)

of course global WARMING exists. what do you call it when something WARMS up? add the world and the fact that it's warming up together and you get the words GLOBAL WARMING. in 200 years it'll be GLOBAL COOLING. people need to settle down and realise that stuff like global warming and cancer are preventable *TO A POINT*. you can do all the right things to keep your body in perfect health but sometimes getting cancer is inevitable. the world is going to warm and cool whether we like it or not. as far as pollution goes i would like to breathe and be able to drink water here in 20 years. i think global pollution would kill us before the earth got hot enought to kill us.


----------



## snowGuinny (Dec 3, 2008)

exactly the world is exactly like those hot and cold pads shaq sellls on tv.

Starts off warm aka global warming and then cools down aka ice age  its a natural cycle .. sure weve helped speed it up but its inevitable so might as well
speed things up right?


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2008)

I think we're screwed. I moved to Whistler a few years ago and it's not looking good. It rained last year in Feb and destoyed the rest of the year. There was only 2 good months last year and one of them was December. Now look at this year! December is a write off and January won't be very good because there will be no base. 

I'm freaking out that it's December and it's raining at 3200m. Cherish snowboarding while it's still around. Kids in 20 years will only know about snowboarding from old x-games videos. There will be no snow.


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

Snowolf said:


> Selective harvest where we leave the best, and take the rest is the sustainable way.


what is to say that our selective preferences are 'the best' beyond our own personal satisfaction? in all that we see, we are the cause of what is going wrong. do we have the capacity to decide what is 'best'?

again, are we looking to please ourselves or save the planet? i think these questions are profoundly valid and work to illustrate our current rate of failure.



> However there are many cases in the west where situations like beetle infestations (thanks in large part to global warming) warrant this practice.


evolution functions thru distinct species adapting to their environment more quickly and thus outcompeting others, who share their resources; hence 'battle of the fittest'.

we might perceive beetle 'infestation' as being undesirable, but what makes us feel justified in claiming it is unnatural?



> In the Oregon forests where the pine beetle has killed stands of trees, it makes good sense.


but it also makes sense to let the rampaging beetles do what they do to inihibit the inherent risk of combustion and therefore forest fire (which incidentally is another natural process which mankind has decided it does not like and thus tries to inhibit and overcome; even tho several species cannot begin growth without first being scorched!)

the essence of my POV.... we need to save the planet, but thus far, we are only pleasing ourselves. we need to stop claiming one thing whilst doing another.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2008)

i live at about 5200 feet and it rains here every year in december. but it will snow. just keep praying right?


----------



## legallyillegal (Oct 6, 2008)

Wilster said:


> I think we're screwed. I moved to Whistler a few years ago and it's not looking good. It rained last year in Feb and destoyed the rest of the year. There was only 2 good months last year and one of them was December. Now look at this year! December is a write off and January won't be very good because there will be no base.
> 
> I'm freaking out that it's December and it's raining at 3200m. Cherish snowboarding while it's still around. Kids in 20 years will only know about snowboarding from old x-games videos. There will be no snow.


My 50ft of pow laughs at you.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2008)

everyone has reasons that global warming could be real. here are some facts against the theory. 

Global Hoax

No Warming


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

in the natural world, the property of balance will win eventually.

every river that has had its course managed to regulate its flow or to reduce the risk of flooding, shall one day realise a return to its 'natural' path.

and so too will the forests of north america return to its 'natural' proportions of resident bushes, trees and bugs. the thing with the beetle dominance is that it COULD be due to warmer winters not killing off adequate numbers.... or it could be that evolution has allowed certain beetles to be more resilient to alpine temperatures?

but for beetle populations to flourish, they also need food and homes, in addition to a kind environment. human management of forests, for logging and recreation has ensured that there are plenty of matured pinewood trees out there for the beetles to exploit.

we exploit them for the views they afford; the beetles exploit them for the homes and food they present. same difference, except the beetle NEEDS the trees, whereas we simply prefer them.

if the human species has fought to conserve the lifespans of these tree organisms, then those other plants who view such trees as competitors for food and territory will have been selected against. this too is due TO US.

to wish to save a certain tree, is to condemn myriad others. thoughts to dismiss the 'right' of a beetle to live, is to dismiss the 'right' of those creatures who feed on such beetles, or those plants who would benefit from the beetle's tree murder, to survive.

again, we are serving ONLY our own personal aesthetic preferences, whilst claiming a desire to preserve nature, where in actual fact, the single best thing we could do, is to do nothing at all!


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2008)

We're back in business! Idaho got dumped on 4 sticky inches last night!


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2009)

i'm not worried about it. my local lift here in anchorage is always opened by halloween, and in mid december/january it gets down to -25. i don't think it'll shut down until way after i'm dead.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2009)

also i'd like to add that written record show that the middle east was a lush grassland only 6000 years ago. now it's a desert. that may happen to places like north america but i doubt human interferance has anything to do with it.


----------



## PaoloSmythe (Aug 19, 2007)

^^^yeah the effects of rampant deforestation are often exaggerated (as far as those who are concerned only with their immediate surroundings are concerned)

but yar...i'm alright jack!


----------



## arsenic0 (Nov 11, 2008)

Snowolf said:


> Okay, those are also just theories against it, not facts. The second link is merely a list of videos and bloggers who have no more credibility in the field than you or I. You need to get information from accredited scientific sources either way, not random bloggers.
> 
> You need to realize that there are two arguments here. First is whether global warming is actually occurring and almost no one refutes this. The evidence is obviously clear. Glaciers are receding at astonishing rates and all measurements of global climate indicate this warming. This scientific fact is clear to every scientist and is no longer in question.
> 
> ...


I am more of a #1 with the belief we should cut back on pollution just to preserve what we have.

For some more scientific studies check out
Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? â€“ Part 1 « Watts Up With That?
Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? â€“ Part 2 « Watts Up With That?

And sites like this really scare me, this guy or group of people are documenting all of the weather stations in the US that are used to calculate the overall temperature and other stats that the government authorities use. Many, way too many infact, of these weather stations are improperly installed. I mean really, installing a weather station next to a air conditioning vent and a cell tower on asphalt? Really? Someone thought that was a good idea?








Home

Even the founder of the weather channel says global warming is a farce. You maybe old enough to remember, maybe not, i wasnt..but what ever happened to the Global Cooling and eminent ice age that the EXACT SAME SCIENTISTS said was coming in the 70's?









I dont deny that the temperature is rising, but i think its foolish to think that we even remotely understand what is going on and the real impact humans are having.


----------

