Change my mind

[Spode 83 / 2,704]

Lets all agree, Communism pollutes the most! Destroy dem commies to save Atlantis! 

[im not inactive you are 888 / 16,340]

3 minutes ago, Duc2000 said:

The change in climate had nothing to do with the hole in the ozone layer, that was caused by CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) that were used in products until they were banned.

The hole in the ozone layer was caused by CFCs, but CFCs can also be produced from car emissions, which is why there are certain rules set in place for gas emissions for a car so that it's street legal, or legal at all.

Also I just debunked climate change, anyways, in the near 50 years the EPA had to research environmental fixes and stuff, what sort of stuff did they find out? I would love to know, because then I would know that my tax dollars are being used wisely, or at least for something useful, instead of trying to find what I believe is a mythical solution to "climate change".

 

Just basing it off the exponential changes in climate since the Ice Age, which the Earth has been getting hotter, that isn't being sped up by humans, it's a cycle, and the changes in weather show it. Scientists just don't want to admit that because then they lose funding (like they already lost it), because they haven't done any major accomplishments in ~50 years.

Edited June 10, 2018 by TheSadBandit

[TheJitFace 699 / 18,162]

2 hours ago, Jerry Hat Trick said:

I think I know the grounds for, and articles of Impeachment a tad better than you do.

I've lived though it, have you?

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

 

 

 

No I have not. 

[Spode 83 / 2,704]

Kinda weird but I do believe in climate change that is bad. I studied corals and specifacally coral bleaching for a science festival a couple years back. The thing is coral ecosystems are very sensative to climate change. The altering of temperatures by just a couple degrees irratates the corals, like a sunburn, killing the polyps and they lose color. Recently in the late 70's and on coral reefs have been bleaching and dying. 70% of the worlds corals are bleached.  This is big proof for me of climate change.

So Trump not believing in climate change is dumb, I understand critism of climate change, but corals are huge indicators. But it is only 7 years, hopefully it will be okay.

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by Spode

[im not inactive you are 888 / 16,340]

Just now, Spode said:

Kinda weird but I do believe in a climate change, that is bad. I studied corals and specifacally coral bleaching, for a science festival a couple years back. The thing is coral ecosystems are very sensative to climate change. The altering of temperatures by just a couple degrees, irratates the corals, like a sunburn, killing the polyps, and they lose color. Recently in the late 70's and on coral reefs have been bleaching and dying. 70% of the worlds are bleached.  This big proof for me of climate change.

So Trump not believing in climate change is dumb, I understand critism of climate change, but corals are huge indicators. But it is only 7 years, hopefully it will be okay.

 

I get where you're coming from, as I did learn about the dying of starfish and the death of a great part of the Great Barrier Reef, I just don't see what people say when they say climate change, when Earth has had a steady increase in climate since the Ice Age, and it just keeps getting hotter, humans didn't cause it, and humans aren't accelerating it (until maybe the scientists that were funded for 50 years say otherwise), I at least want some proof of that, since that service had been going on for 50 years approximately, they should have some good, solid research done about this climate change that everyone keeps assuming things about (and doing personal research like yourself and many others). Also partially the reason for the bleaching is the water heating up, but it's also the impact of lionfish in the waters, since lionfish eat everything, and they destroy ecosystems.

[rapperdan 2,323 / 0]

6 minutes ago, Spode said:

Kinda weird but I do believe in a climate change, that is bad. I studied corals and specifacally coral bleaching, for a science festival a couple years back. The thing is coral ecosystems are very sensative to climate change. The altering of temperatures by just a couple degrees, irratates the corals, like a sunburn, killing the polyps, and they lose color. Recently in the late 70's and on coral reefs have been bleaching and dying. 70% of the worlds are bleached.  This big proof for me of climate change.

So Trump not believing in climate change is dumb, I understand critism of climate change, but corals are huge indicators. But it is only 7 years, hopefully it will be okay.

 

yah speaking of that 

fyi I watched this maybe more then 6 years ago and I still remember the cause and it was only a small increase in the water temperature and well when you kill these jelly fish they have a natural instinct to well release all there eggs and sperm into the water so you can't kill them off...

Edited June 10, 2018 by rapperdan

[Spode 83 / 2,704]

3 minutes ago, TheSadBandit said:

I get where you're coming from, as I did learn about the dying of starfish and the death of a great part of the Great Barrier Reef, I just don't see what people say when they say climate change, when Earth has had a steady increase in climate since the Ice Age, and it just keeps getting hotter, humans didn't cause it, and humans aren't accelerating it.

Well it is happening very recently with the mass production from china. Humans are big terraformers, we have done some big changes to the earth in the past. Gas emitions are too great to be ignored. Again scientists have always been very wrong on weather. Just look at the local weather, it is all predictions. We can't predict the unpredictable. But even if climate change is not that big of a threat, threats bring progress, look at the cold war for example. The more problems we think we have, the quicker people will try fix them. 

 

[im not inactive you are 888 / 16,340]

7 minutes ago, Spode said:

Well it is happening very recently with the mass production from china. Humans are big terraformers, we have done some big changes to the earth in the past. Gas emitions are too great to be ignored. Again scientists have always been very wrong on weather. Just look at the local weather, it is all predictions. We can't predict the unpredictable. But even if climate change is not that big of a threat, threats bring progress, look at the cold war for example. The more problems we think we have, the quicker people will try fix them. 

 

True that, I'm just thinking economically, the EPA did little, if nothing major, in the past 50ish years it was instated, I don't see what the scientists could do this year that they didn't do last year, or the year before that. I see what you're talking about when you say major changes, but I don't see the scientists funded by the EPA money doing anything about it, or at least trying to fix the damages, if in the past 50 years they had been pushing progress, and finding actual solutions to the problems we have, and the problems we have created, then maybe Trump would've been a little more understanding, but economically their budget of $8 billion had done nothing in the past 50 years, and maybe cutting it to $5.7 billion will move the scientists to try to accomplish something greater than cleaning up old factory remnants (not that it's not important, it's not helping the climate change issue at all). If they would shift part of their focus from cleaning up past mistakes, and having some branches research ways to fix this climate change issue, maybe they could spend their annual $5.7 billion on something more useful.

 

I will agree with you that climate change does exist, but you said it yourself, scientists have always been wrong about weather, and for the past 50 years they've been funded by the same EPA money (that could've been spent elsewhere and done greater impact). I don't agree with cutting it all the way down to $5.7 billion as an annual budget, as I do believe we should be trying to clean up our past mistakes such as the polluting of the Great Lakes, and landfills, and things that harm the Earth in the US, maybe something less drastic, something along the lines of $6.5 - 7 billion instead, that way they can spend that $1 billion elsewhere.

[Cassie 1,226 / 23,060]

56 minutes ago, TheSadBandit said:

The hole in the ozone layer was caused by CFCs, but CFCs can also be produced from car emissions, which is why there are certain rules set in place for gas emissions for a car so that it's street legal, or legal at all.

Also I just debunked climate change, anyways, in the near 50 years the EPA had to research environmental fixes and stuff, what sort of stuff did they find out? I would love to know, because then I would know that my tax dollars are being used wisely, or at least for something useful, instead of trying to find what I believe is a mythical solution to "climate change".

 

Just basing it off the exponential changes in climate since the Ice Age, which the Earth has been getting hotter, that isn't being sped up by humans, it's a cycle, and the changes in weather show it. Scientists just don't want to admit that because then they lose funding (like they already lost it), because they haven't done any major accomplishments in ~50 years.

Well I would rather think my tax dollars are going towards trying to learn things and move forwards rather than going to bomb people.
Literally from the website of the EPA:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases#ref5
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/greenhouse-gases

[im not inactive you are 888 / 16,340]

17 minutes ago, Duc2000 said:

Well I would rather think my tax dollars are going towards trying to learn things and move forwards rather than going to bomb people.
Literally from the website of the EPA:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases#ref5
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/greenhouse-gases

In my honest opinion, if the question is whether to have the world's strongest military, and portray it as that or learning about our ecosystem and ways to better it, I choose both. The main increase for the military's budget is to give our soldiers who risk their lives for our freedom, a better pay, and a better living. I honestly think a soldier should live worry-free once they come to the US, they put their lives on the line to serve and protect us, and if that means increasing the military spending by 10% so they can have better benefits, then I am all for it. Here's 2018's budget and 2019's budget (hyperlink) the gov't spending our tax dollars on "bombing" black people in the Middle East.

 

As for EPA spending, if the govt would let a private sector do the cleaning, I bet they would not only finish much faster, but they would also do a way better job at cleaning all these polluting sites. They would also probably do it for less too, because one thing about working for the government you have to understand is that you can't be fired from working, and what I mean by this, is that you can't be laid off because your budget was cut. You can resign, but unless you don't do your minimum work, then there is no way you lose your job, and that is the reason these EPA scientists haven't moved forward much in 50 years, as long as they show "progress" toward something, such as slowly cleaning the Great Lakes, and stuff like that, they will take another 50 years to "finish" something that doesn't take that long.

 

I'll put a personal example of what I mean by this. Where I lived, there is a lake called Lake Managua, the dirtiest lake in all of Central America, it's the lake next to the capital city, and all the drainage systems would (and some still do) end up in the lake. The lake was so polluted people couldn't step within a 500 foot radius of the lake, because of all the toxins, and chemicals, and all the pollution. This was about 10 years ago, today the lake is cleaner, they're still working on finishing the cleaning process, but it's clean enough that a factory has set up a water purification plant, and they are bottling the purified water, and producing the most purified water, scientifically tested water. That is because of the private sector wanting to change the fact that the lake was black. It's just an example of what the private sector can do in 10 years, that the government couldn't do in 20. 

 

Anyways, I'll read up on the 2 links you posted to get more informed about the issue, thanks for posting them!

Edited June 10, 2018 by TheSadBandit

[Cassie 1,226 / 23,060]

3 minutes ago, TheSadBandit said:

In my honest opinion, if the question is whether to have the world's strongest military, and portray it as that or learning about our ecosystem and ways to better it, I choose both. The main increase for the military's budget is to give our soldiers who risk their lives for our freedom, a better pay, and a better living. I honestly think a soldier should live worry-free once they come to the US, they put their lives on the line to serve and protect us, and if that means increasing the military spending by 10% so they can have better benefits, then I am all for it. Here's 2018's budget and 2019's budget (hyperlink) the gov't spending our tax dollars on "bombing" black people in the Middle East.

 

As for EPA spending, if the govt would let a private sector do the cleaning, I bet they would not only finish much faster, but they would also do a way better job at cleaning all these polluting sites. They would also probably do it for less too, because one thing about working for the government you have to understand is that you can't be fired from working, and what I mean by this, is that you can't be laid off because your budget was cut. You can resign, but unless you don't do your minimum work, then there is no way you lose your job, and that is the reason these EPA scientists haven't moved forward much in 50 years, as long as they show "progress" toward something, such as slowly cleaning the Great Lakes, and stuff like that, they will take another 50 years to "finish" something that doesn't take that long.

 

I'll put a personal example of what I mean by this. Where I lived, there is a lake called Lake Managua, the dirtiest lake in all of Central America, it's the lake next to the capital city, and all the drainage systems would (and some still do) end up in the lake. The lake was so polluted people couldn't step within a 500 foot radius of the lake, because of all the toxins, and chemicals, and all the pollution. This was about 10 years ago, today the lake is cleaner, they're still working on finishing the cleaning process, but it's clean enough that a factory has set up a water purification plant, and they are bottling the purified water, and producing the most purified water, scientifically tested water. That is because of the private sector wanting to change the fact that the lake was black. It's just an example of what the private sector can do in 10 years, that the government couldn't do in 20. 

 

Anyways, I'll read up on the 2 links you posted to get more informed about the issue, thanks for posting them!

tl;dr gov is shit. Wasn't there something in the constitution about overthrowing the gov if it become bad? Anyways, I wish there were more companies like that who tried to fix problems rather than make money. Sure, they still make a profit, but its better than some company creating pollution to make money.

[Spode 83 / 2,704]

47 minutes ago, TheSadBandit said:

True that, I'm just thinking economically, the EPA did little, if nothing major, in the past 50ish years it was instated, I don't see what the scientists could do this year that they didn't do last year, or the year before that. I see what you're talking about when you say major changes, but I don't see the scientists funded by the EPA money doing anything about it, or at least trying to fix the damages, if in the past 50 years they had been pushing progress, and finding actual solutions to the problems we have, and the problems we have created, then maybe Trump would've been a little more understanding, but economically their budget of $8 billion had done nothing in the past 50 years, and maybe cutting it to $5.7 billion will move the scientists to try to accomplish something greater than cleaning up old factory remnants (not that it's not important, it's not helping the climate change issue at all). If they would shift part of their focus from cleaning up past mistakes, and having some branches research ways to l $5.7 billion on something more useful.

 

And the ironic thing is. Private companies like Tesla help the climate and save money! Industries are pushing for other types of energy, while the scientists sit at cnn saying what Musk is doing is bad. Scientists are as just as political as any politician, so facts will be scued to meet political agendas. But again, there probably is progress somewhere and maybe we do not see it. Like with cancer funding, how some don't think there is any progress with cancer, but actually there is alot a progress that does not get talked on much for some reason.

 

-Edit Sorry for taking so long, travelled through a dead zone in alabama.

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by Spode

[Z1galord 499 / 8,437]

@TheSadBandit Ur gay. The End.

[im not inactive you are 888 / 16,340]

4 minutes ago, Z1galord said:

@TheSadBandit Ur gay. The End.

no u

[Spode 83 / 2,704]

@TheSadBandit

You should say if you had your mind changed on some things or not, then close the topic.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Spode

[im not inactive you are 888 / 16,340]

Great idea by @Spode, I did not have my mind changed on the topic, but I did learn new things, and I do respect and love the amount of research and new information used throughout this post. I consider myself well-informed on certain topics, and I like talking facts, and I respect people who can argue with me with facts, putting aside things like "Trump is retarded" or "Trump is an idiot" and actually stating facts that either make those statements true or false. As for the off-topic weather/climate change stuff, I can say my opinion on that did change a bit. Although I still think that the cuts on the EPA are good, I believe the EPA should search for privatization in the cleaning of the damaged areas of the US, that way they create jobs, but at the same time finish quicker. Other than that, I can see the problem people have had with "climate change" in the near 20 years of the 21st century.

 

I'd like to finish this off by thanking all those who commented and kept this civil, although there were times in which there was disagreement, there was never a time of the feeling of "offended" or "triggered" that has become a common meme in today's society.

Edited June 10, 2018 by TheSadBandit

[-_Fx_- 666 / 11,186]