Global Warming
Yes, it's a very 2004 topic, but it's been changing recently. There's tons of new things coming out that are "Eco-Friendly", like eco friendly game casings, and Sun Chips' new less plastic packaging, same with less plastic in water bottles.
My opinion on these new products?
(forgive me Telltale, because your SBCG4AP retail box is the eco friendly one)
Less work and effort on packaging, meaning flimsier packaging. Also, it's a way to spend less money, making big companies keep more of their profits.
In short, global warming seems like a scam to me, almost. Scientists have before went up to Al Gore to say their views (which I agree with them), and also say that Carbon Dioxide doesn't even contribute to "Global Warming".
Your thoughts?
My opinion on these new products?
(forgive me Telltale, because your SBCG4AP retail box is the eco friendly one)
Less work and effort on packaging, meaning flimsier packaging. Also, it's a way to spend less money, making big companies keep more of their profits.
In short, global warming seems like a scam to me, almost. Scientists have before went up to Al Gore to say their views (which I agree with them), and also say that Carbon Dioxide doesn't even contribute to "Global Warming".
Your thoughts?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I reckon that there will be a push for nuclear fission, which will later be replaced by fusion as the tech isn't quite there. As for cars, biofuels are probably going to replace petrol.
I know oil needs to be replaced. But we shouldn't be doing it with vegetable oil or whatever. Sure, it's "Eco Friendly", but with all the cars in the world running on it, our food supply would rapidly decrease.
Who says suits don't have a sense of humor....
Are they trying to scare us and make us feel afraid?
People often hear about one instance of a study that suggests that global warming isn't much of a problem and conclude "scientists have admitted that global warming is made up" (or the other way round), which is just ill-informed.
Yes, but now, (since I am on the side that it is fake) scientists might just be blowing off money and time by researching stuff that will end up proving that all that research was pointless.
Hence why I only believe it will be used for cars, and other power coming from nuclear sources, nuclear power is not suitable for cars, biofuels aren't suitable for power plants.
Edit: Also all of the beliefs that it isn't real are c***, based on earlier studies which examined whether it is caused by humans or not, in the same way the ice ages happened.
The point I'm making is that you should question why you're on the side that it's fake. How much research did you do to lead you to this conclusion?
Also, if you're already on one side then you're bound to be more ready to reject anything that disagrees with you. This is another reason why the general public isn't always fit to make decisions like this. Scientists have to approach things without bias and it's imperative that they don't personally care about the result. This will stop them from making decisions based on their feelings rather than empirical evidence and logic.
Another thing to just point out: researchers wouldn't be wasting money no matter what the result. A negative result is still a result, and it still helps to crystallize our vision of what's going on.
I'll break it to you: not much research. But I'm not ready to disagree with everything yet. I really doubt, however, that CO2 is a cause of it (hence the video).
Humans have been around for a long time, and have been breathing out CO2. I don't care how much we breath out, say, annually, but I'm pretty sure it would be enough to have us concerned about global warming in at least 1950, if it were actually the cause.
It's odd to have a scientific debate that's so political though. A person's political stance seems to determine what they think about global warming, which cannot be logical.
It's not odd. It's wrong. The government, in truth, shouldn't really branch into science at all. The government can't (and shouldn't) do more then look over and give views on science, much like the general public. Like with the oil spill. Obama went down to the gulf a couple times, but did that honestly help? No. Just because you see a very famous person and they give their views on something, doesn't mean they're right.
Most folks that use biodiesel get it from pre used oil at fast food places who were going to throw it away anyways. That said, I don't think this is the ultimate answer to the problem and we should research and develop new ways of transportation that is lighter on fuel or even doesn't use fuel at all.
A lot of companies are exploiting the whole "eco friendly" thing, and it really bothers me. Especially bottled water plants who are like: OMG LOOK WE'RE USING LESS PLASTIC. They're still using plastics that really shouldn't have been used. Heck, I think the less plastic we use the better. And that isn't even issue about global warming (which really should be referred to as climate change), this is an issue about keeping our home world habitable. Because honestly? This is not okay.
It really shouldn't even matter if you "believe" in climate change or not. Honestly, we should all care about this rock we live on, if only for the idea that I don't like breathing or eating pollutions. Even when I was more or less skeptical about the idea of climate change, I still made an effort to waste less, be more efficient, walk or use public transportation, grow a bit of my own food, heck, turn off the lights when I'm not using them. If we all did simple things like that, not only would we be doing everyone a favor by not screwing us over, but you would save so much money as well.
By just ignoring it and saying "WELP, I JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT SO I WON'T DO NOTHIN'", it seems like you're just lazy. I think the best thing we can do at this point is to try to make our lives more efficient and trust peer reviewed scientific research unless new peer reviewed research has since emerged.
And to get the record straight, Al Gore is a hypocrite. Mansions pretty much never do anything good for the environment (or the person other than feed their ego) unless it's housing several folks at once. Just because you have two solar panels on top of a 10,000 sq f building does not mean you're helping anyone.
Also, a youtube video? Really?
Agree with the idea that Global Warming exists, but is a direct cause of the Earth's "cycle" of life.
And how do you feel about people who create posts that make no sense?
Why
Also I like how quotation marks start appearing when someone doesn't agree with a certain aspect of something. Not believing in man-made global warming. Fine. Some scientists agree with you. But gravity isn't man-made, and I don't refer to it as "gravity" when saying something about it.
No, I'm just putting it in quotations because the currently decided correct term is "Global climate change"
The global warming main issue is that the accumulation of gases in planet earth are creating a sauna like environment that its rising temperatures into even hotter. More gasses are staying on our ecosystem than being released by earth. I think to say Global warming is a myth its pure ignorance and make yourself look stupid. Florida was the 1st warning, and expect more seasons like that, weird winters, weird and irregular summers, drought, floods, and whats worst hunger. Why? because where it used to rain, it doesn't no longer, or happens the opposite extreme raining ruining crops, and fields that are used to make our everyday food.
The only debate is for the rich and upper class to fight and see how can they discredit science and protect themselves financially.
This. To pretty much every post in this thread.
I'm not rich or anything. In fact, if rich people deny global warming, then not many companies would use Eco-Products.
The question of whether or not it was caused by humans is only completely answerable by removing all humans from the planet's surface and going to live in space. It makes sense as conjecture due to the upswing in temperature starting around the beginning of the industrial revolution and spiking in the last 50 years. Though it's impossible to know for certain, it seems wise to err somewhat on the side of caution.
Makes me wonder where everyone keeps getting these contradictory "researches". I can't come up with anything than huge companies not wanting to spend money on the environment or yeah, just lazy people not wanting to start recycling.
These three words are pretty key. Regardless of what you think might be happening, there is no good reason to NOT try to reduce carbon output.
Yes, natural cycles do exist. Yes, we are currently in an upswing. But there is every reason to believe we could be exacerbating matters if we are not the direct cause of them.
Also, it's pretty absurd to deny the HUGE body of scientific evidence in favor of global warming. Burying your head in the sand isn't going to get you anywhere.
It's like denying evolution or something. Jeez.
This begs the question of whether you can get it out of your basement.
I can't remember ever buying bottled water, ever. I'm sure that's better than buying a brand that uses slightly less plastic. It reminds me of seeing a biodegradable one-use razor.
They were all "it's environment-friendly", but really, it's still one use, and still polluted lots to produce, whether it's biodegradable or not. It might be slightly better than a one-use non biodegradable razor, but it's not as good as one where you only change the head, which in turn isn't as good as one where you only change the blade, which in turn isn't as good as one that you sharpen, which isn't as good as not shaving at all (in which case you don't even use a razor to begin with).
While every level potentially comes with more hassle or a bigger original investment, you can usually find a middle ground where it's pretty much no hassle compared to the benefits you get.
So, these "better for the environment" products, on the whole, seem to be just second to worst environment-wise, and certainly not some of the best options. I think they're just trying to manipulate people.
Plus they're expensive.
I agree that in most cases buying an eco-friendly product is worse than not buying anything at all, but let's be realistic: not many people are voluntarily going to make drastic lifestyle changes. Just look at how hard it is to get people to stop using incandescent light bulbs, for example. I can't imagine many people are willing to stop shaving, as you propose, even though that would arguably be the most eco-friendly option. The next best thing is to at least have some eco-friendly alternatives available. In this case, a straight razor might be the eco-friendly alternative to a disposable blade. Why wouldn't they advertise it as such, and why shouldn't you buy it instead of the disposable razors you'd otherwise buy?
I'm often surprised by how wasteful many people are. Simple things like turning off the TV when you're not watching, or putting on a sweater when you're cold instead of turning up the heat, or turning left-over dinner into a nice hot lunch instead of throwing it out, seem completely alien to some people. I'm sure that with very little effort, consumers could prevent a lot of waste, if they would put their minds to it. And to address your "it's expensive" remark: many of these simple measures save (a little) money too.
Of course, not all things advertised as "eco-friendly" really are. As a rule, advertisements are dishonest, so you should always think critically about what is claimed. Still, I still think that genuinely eco-friendly alternatives can help people be less wasteful without requiring big sacrifices in their lifestyle, and I think that's a good thing.
That's not what I meant at all. I also didn't say everyone should stop shaving, I was just saying that on the scale of most polluting to least polluting, one-use biodegradable razors are pretty damn close to most polluting, so calling them "eco-friendly" is a laugh, and that's usually how I feel about products advertised as "eco-friendly".
If you want to choose a razor based on the impact on the environment, a straight or traditional safety razor would be the best option. The traditional safety razors are still widely available, if expensive, and while it's an investment at first you save a lot on the long run because they'll last all your life (or generations if you have someone to pass it on to) and the blades cost next to nothing compared to the more modern style ones (a 100 blade pack for the price of 5 to 10 cartridges). And the blades are 100% recyclable, too.
This is the type of razor I mean, incidentally. Merkur is a good brand.
My point was more that there is a broad range of things you can do, and you can find the one that matches you the best. And in a lot of cases, the best option is to just do without something, but we're so used to using it that we don't consider stopping or using a non-disposable version instead. Which I think is sad.
I personally just can't stand the idea of buying all that stuff and throwing it away. It's such a waste. I don't get why there are so many disposable or one use things. Or rather, I get it (the companies get to sell more of them, so they try to convince you it's more practical/healthy/clean/etc) but I don't understand why so many people fall for it and just do it without apparently realising they have other options.
I don't really care what you decide to use in the end, I guess, but I'd feel much better knowing that everybody actually thought about it and picked the option they felt worked the best for them, instead of just using the first thing they could grab. So I'm upset (with the companies) when people buy "eco-friendly" products, thinking that they're doing a good thing when they're not, and might already have better stuff laying around in their homes, but they just don't know to use it.
Heck, just alcohol vinegar, baking soda and washing soda will fill at least 90% of your cleaning needs.
Does it? That seems highly unlikely.