Scientists: Human Activity Has Pushed Earth Beyond

You're still under the delusion that a middle ground should be found, much less should be.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is delusional, but I don't think you know what that word means anymore with how often you use it. Have fun with that extremist viewpoint, as you'll never be in a political position to make use of it.

here here.

I'm fairly certain we all think people like this are complete nuts:



let's hear more about them chemtrails!

To the bold: Never said they were, and I know full well what it means.

It's not an extremist viewpoint to realize and understand and accept that not everyone's opinions are as valid as others'.

While not equivalent or a basis of comparison, an example of this would be presuming that we will deplete ourselves of fossil fuels and finite sources of energy before funding and subsequent advances in technology breakthroughs that will essentially curb the deadline in our favor to the point where such things will be ultimately obsolete.

Granted, it is difficult to measure such presumptuous afflictions, as it is difficult to get scientists, conservationists, engineers, and economists all on the same page, let alone on speaking terms.
I'll agree that if we remain stagnate in our endeavors as humans, we're doomed to bring our planet along with ourselves to hell in handbasket. However, I believe our endeavors when properly allocated on a long enough timeline will allow us to prevail as a civilization and species.

I pretty much was saying the same thing that you just agreed with Tikal on. I think you just want to argue with me, so I'm not going to entertain you. Also, it might be wise to consider the possibility that your own opinions aren't as valid as others'. Who woulda thunk?

But you didn't, and your usual lines of "middle ground hur dur" gets old, as evidenced here:


As for the introspection, I'm more than capable, willing and do it too often.

Using the case of Jassik's post, I didn't take the most extreme stance just to make moderate stances seem extreme. I took a moderate stance and you're the one trying to say that a middle ground shouldn't be found. It seems that you're acting more along the lines of what Jassik was saying, not me.

Not at all, but that's because I'm including previous conversations into this.

But just to use another example posted here for the lulz, what would you say the "middle ground" is to not dump toxic waste into our water supplies?

Uh, sure. So, previous conversations on entirely different topics dictate why I'm the extremist on this topic and not you? Get them logic centers checked out, man. And as for your very poorly constructed straw man, yes, I would consider preventing the dumping of toxic wastes into water supplies to be safely in the middle ground. You know, preventing insanely obvious health hazards is the only type of environmental regulation that there is, right? Or would you like to challenge me on whether or not putting uranium waste in school lunches is middle ground too?

You're the one who needs to get your logic center checked out when you can't even determine what the different views are.

But I think the entire point has escaped you, and I'm tired, so I'm going to try to go to bed. Have fun pretending you're for the middle ground when you constantly argue against it, while trying to act superior.

We need more! To save the planet!

Oh, I'm totally against it. Constantly, even. I'm so against it, in fact, that you're going to be able to actually find and quote posts where I'm actively against the middle ground on multiple topics. Yup. I can't wait to see how easily you accomplish that.

Fixed to make more sense.

Planet doesn't give a *** about us. It'll be here for billions of years after we're gone. Whether or not the planet stays habitable to our extremely delicate homeostasis is another issue entirely, and exactly what's threatened in this scenario. Regulating what businesses can pump into the air, soil and water is important, and if anything affects the climate, the food chain, or biomes of earth, it *** with us. It'll be very gradual, and then it'll hit a tipping point.

No, you just pretend the middle ground isn't where it is, so you can act morally superior, it's quite common of you in fact.

I'd be concerned with what you say and or think, but that would be damn near certifiable if I did.

Keep having fun with trying to decipher what words mean, you may eventually learn some.

For all of the things that you claim are so common or such common knowledge, you sure can't seem to ever back up any of your claims with quotes, links, or citations of any kind. On that note, I need sleep. I can't wait to see you actual evidence from you when I wake up.

So if we can agree dumping harmful chemicals into waterways is safely in the middle ground everyone should be in favor of doing away with Frac'ing, and mountaintop removal to mine coal. Yes?

"Middle ground" to some people is "as the amount of money we make off it goes up, so does the amount of damage we can do and afford to eat the loss financially."

"Middle ground" for the people funding these industries is just another balancing point on a financial spreadsheet.

ITT: When it's hard to find middle ground in a debate, move the goalposts towards your agenda and make that the "middle ground"

Politics 101.

ftfy for accuracy.

It does, but no one here who feels otherwise is going to watch it and have their mind changed, because it was never about facts.

I don't think the article was as focused on "dumping chemicals into the river" as stated above. Here's why:

I'm of the opinion that the US does a pretty good job of regulating disposal of hazardous waste. EPA haz waste generator classifications are tied to taxation and RCRA is a fairly well written, ever expansive piece of legislation.

While I can only speak to Denver, we have "Household hazardous waste" gathering and disposal events every year. There are two times you can have the items picked up at your house, you can take it to a recycling facility twice a week, or you can bring it to the larger events during the summer. It's a small fee and they'll use proper channels to dispose of it.

On the larger end, the biggest clients of Veolia and CHESI are Lockheed Martin, Haliburton, hospitals, Retail Chains (Walmart, Target, etc), and pharmaceutical companies. Even smaller outfits arrange for waste to be sent to incinerators and treatment facilities owned by the bigger companies.

They pay a pretty penny to dispose of their haz-waste and even more if they let it sit too long.

Why? Because they're deathly afraid of fees and penalties for not doing so.

Don't get me wrong, super-fund sites are a big deal. Federal funds are allocated to cleaning them up which is either good or bad depending on how you look at it.



Could it be better? Likely, yes. But imagine if none of this was regulated......

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Sometimes they use the most cost-effective methods and just pay when the occasional, inevitable spillage happens because that's the "cost of doing business".

Sometimes they simply defer the costs for later, banking (probably correctly) that people will forget they're supposed to do things or will just miss the fact that they're the ones that need to do them.

The fracking industry certainly doesn't seem scared even a little bit about the potentials of contamination, or the degradation and (quite costly) need to re-dig/cap fracking sites multiple times each every 20 years.

And then it will be on taxpayers to pay to fix things, and people will complain about that as if it's the government's fault, and not the industries'...

I'm not talking about spills.

Disposal of haz waste IS part of the cost of doing business by large quantity generators, small quantity generators, and conditionally exempt small quantity generators. You should check out how much grease monkey pays to dispose of their used oil.

Large-scale spills are infrequent at best. Are they a big deal when they occur? Yes. Does that mean they happen all the time? Would you like to tell us something you shouldn't?

Everyone just needs to come stand with me here on the 50 yrd line. ;p

There are tons of points on both sides, problem is for one side to acknowledge merit in the other side's argument, it is tantamount to defeat.

Take our fair forums, if acknowledge even a single point from the opposition then you spend 3 pages clarifying that you only acknowledge one point and not their entire argument.

In reality the biggest obstacle to true environmental regulation is divided world government. Until there is a unified body in charge of all the worlds environmental regulations no one country can successfully regulate. Yes, I am saying current regulation fails.