gorudy08
Newbie
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 17
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: San Francisco plastic bag ban |
 |
|
|
| Okay I was just on the news part of my homepage and was watching a news clip about this. Personally my thoughts on Global Warming are skeptical. There are too many scientists that say Global Warming is real and that it isn't. All I believe is that we have to clean the air no matter if it is real or not. But I think this is a little far. This is going make grocery's prices there sky rocket. Thats why I support stores like Wal- Mart and Target because they can lower there prices big time for people like me and poor people. They also create many jobs. So I just think this is just going a little too far I mean you shouldn't make a complete ban on plastic bags. Sure they can lower the amount in how they use the plastic bag but not a ban. But what can I say its San Francisco........................................................................... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JLV
Site Admin
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:17 pm Post subject: Re: San Francisco plastic bag ban |
|
|
|
| gorudy08 wrote: | | Personally my thoughts on Global Warming are skeptical. There are too many scientists that say Global Warming is real and that it isn't. All I believe is that we have to clean the air no matter if it is real or not. |
It is real...and your right, whether it wasn't or is, clean air is a good thing.
Check out the LVC Global Warming Project I started here.
http://www.liberalsvsconservat.....-t447.html
Contacted several hundred research scientists and climatologists on the subject...
Here is an interesting reply from one of them...
| Quote: |
UMCP Assistant Research Scientist
Dear Mr ******,
Thanks for your questions. I think it is valuable to collect opinions
and
arguments from scientific experts, but I also suggest it would be
valuable
to try to find out why so-called "climate skeptics" so vehemently
disregard scientific expertise. It's partly due to inadequate
scientific
communication (which you are helping to remedy), but I think also
partly
because, to coin a phrase, some truth is inconvenient; or maybe
"uncomfortable" is a better word. Genuine skeptics doubt whatever they
hear until they can reason or test it out, but so-called "climate
skeptics" often seem to be very credulous of unqualified sources
stating
more convenient, comfortable claims. Do they not seek the most expert
opinion for their own medical, legal, architectural, automotive etc.
needs? |
In regard to banning plastic bags at Walmart?
Who cares, you will still get whatever you need, just not in a plastic bag.
The only people that will be hurting are the industries who make plastic bags, whom I'm guessing, don't believe global warming to be true  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGreatNeoCon
Not a Newbie
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
If they want to ban plastic bags from their city then that is their right wether or not anyone agrees with the new rule. Wether or not it will have any economic effect will remain to be seen for now. If enough citizens there disagree then they should let the city council know about it and fast. Democracy is a beautiful thing.
About Global Warming...I'm not skeptical that there is climate change, I'm just skeptical that it is completely manmade. For a scientist that wants to argue that those who oppose it might have something "to gain" needs to take a look in the mirror, IMO. There are extremists on both sides of the argument that could possibly have something to gain. Some may argue against it that are being paid by big oil to denounce the idea. Some on the complete opposite side of the argument may need the funding, grant money, or possibly popularity in their field. There is a middle ground to be had with the hypothesis and models created by reasonable people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheGreatNeoCon wrote: |
About Global Warming...I'm not skeptical that there is climate change, I'm just skeptical that it is completely manmade. |
The warming trend that we see is, in fact, the direct result of human intervention.
The statement that it is 'completely man made' is too ambiguous. What does that mean? We certainly didn't make the weather. And we don't make the sunlight that brings the heat to earth.
| Quote: | | There is a middle ground to be had with the hypothesis and models created by reasonable people. |
You should never consider finding the middle ground to be a legitimate strategy in the pursuit of the truth.
The 'middle ground' is entirely dependent upon how many people say or think a particular thing - it has absolutely no bearing on reality. To believe that the truth will fall somewhere between the extremes chosen by humans to discuss is to make a very inaccurate assumption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shankarsingam
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1139
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| No surprise about SF banning plastic bags. They tried to ban hand guns a few years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dar
Not a Newbie
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Whats the alternative then?
because more paper bags won't solve a thing.. TREES.
argh, and there are WAY too many lazy people out in cali too make all the stores bag-less |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Trees, unlike plastic, grow back.
Paper is recycleable.
And, perhaps most importantly, paper bags are biodegradeable (i would think). Plastic bags stick around for a long time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGreatNeoCon
Not a Newbie
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | The warming trend that we see is, in fact, the direct result of human intervention.
The statement that it is 'completely man made' is too ambiguous. What does that mean? We certainly didn't make the weather. And we don't make the sunlight that brings the heat to earth. |
I think you took the term "completely manmade" a little too literally. Actually that statement was more an answer to those that agree with you about human intervention. I am skeptical that is the direct result of man and not the result of weather cycle. But if it is a direct result of man then questions how much of any climate change happening is a result of man? It wasn't but thirty years ago that the major fear amongst scientists was Global Cooling.
| Quote: | You should never consider finding the middle ground to be a legitimate strategy in the pursuit of the truth.
The 'middle ground' is entirely dependent upon how many people say or think a particular thing - it has absolutely no bearing on reality. To believe that the truth will fall somewhere between the extremes chosen by humans to discuss is to make a very inaccurate assumption. |
I don't mean a middle ground as in a compromise. At least that is what I'm assuming you thought I meant by finding a middle ground. Basically what I said was I don't believe either extreme. I don't believe Man is totally innocent nor do I believe that we are all doomed in 10 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGreatNeoCon
Not a Newbie
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | Trees, unlike plastic, grow back.
Paper is recycleable.
And, perhaps most importantly, paper bags are biodegradeable (i would think). Plastic bags stick around for a long time. |
I think what he means is it will take more and more trees now to replace those paper bags. Although we are talking about one city and there can be good in it such as being forced to plant more and more trees to help output. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheGreatNeoCon wrote: |
I think you took the term "completely manmade" a little too literally. |
I try to. I don't like ambiguity because it leads to misunderstanding. A good discussion can go haywire when two people are talking about two different things while using the same words.
| Quote: |
Actually that statement was more an answer to those that agree with you about human intervention. I am skeptical that is the direct result of man and not the result of weather cycle. But if it is a direct result of man then questions how much of any climate change happening is a result of man? |
It's hard to say, and that's a good question.
In fact, were it not for both the clear correlation and the understanding of a mechanism through which we think it occurs, nobody would be adamant about global warming being human-caused.
But we do have those two things. We have a clear correlation and a clear mechanism through which it occurs.
| Quote: | | Basically what I said was I don't believe either extreme. I don't believe Man is totally innocent nor do I believe that we are all doomed in 10 years. |
No one thinks we're doomed in 10 years. It'll take longer than that.
But, this being a process that is so large, and so slow, we have to stop it long before we're doomed, otherwise we won't be able to do anything at all when the real problems start happening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGreatNeoCon
Not a Newbie
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | I try to. I don't like ambiguity because it leads to misunderstanding. A good discussion can go haywire when two people are talking about two different things while using the same words. |
Understandable and agreeable. I think there can be a misunderstanding that leads to argument no matter how carefully the words are chosen because this is the internet and none of us actually know each other, but can't argue your point. I'm glad it was understood that the comment was a view of one extreme side of the argument.
| Quote: | It's hard to say, and that's a good question.
In fact, were it not for both the clear correlation and the understanding of a mechanism through which we think it occurs, nobody would be adamant about global warming being human-caused.
But we do have those two things. We have a clear correlation and a clear mechanism through which it occurs. |
I think its the only way we can come up with any real solutions is to find how much of it is the doing of man and how much of it is cycle.
| Quote: | No one thinks we're doomed in 10 years. It'll take longer than that.
But, this being a process that is so large, and so slow, we have to stop it long before we're doomed, otherwise we won't be able to do anything at all when the real problems start happening. |
That's a pretty ambiguous statement is it not? Now rational thinking scientists obviously don't believe we are doomed, but the cheerleaders for this movement whom actually the power to make a big influence have already stated what a serious condition the planet is in right now. I am still studying all sides(or at least attempting to) of the argument right now. There are many many many sides of it. Eh, rather angles than sides. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheGreatNeoCon wrote: |
I think its the only way we can come up with any real solutions is to find how much of it is the doing of man and how much of it is cycle. |
Yep.
Were you under the impression that that was unknown?
| Quote: |
That's a pretty ambiguous statement is it not? Now rational thinking scientists obviously don't believe we are doomed, |
That depends on what you mean by "doomed", and it depends on the timeframe you're talking about.
| Quote: |
but the cheerleaders for this movement whom actually the power to make a big influence have already stated what a serious condition the planet is in right now. I am still studying all sides(or at least attempting to) of the argument right now. There are many many many sides of it. Eh, rather angles than sides. |
Don't look at both sides. Don't look at any sides.
I'd recommend reading about science, in general. If you understand the science, the answer is abundantly clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGreatNeoCon
Not a Newbie
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Yep.
Were you under the impression that that was unknown? |
I'm under the impression of alot of things regarding Global Warming such as those that are searching for answers for circumstances unknown.
| Quote: | | That depends on what you mean by "doomed", and it depends on the timeframe you're talking about. |
Doesn't depend on anything. I see you to be a rational person that searches for truth. The sudden surge for this movement over the last couple of years is no secret. It's brought on by some rational thinking men and women of science. It's also brought to center stage by the likes of Al Gore and co.
| Quote: | Don't look at both sides. Don't look at any sides.
I'd recommend reading about science, in general. If you understand the science, the answer is abundantly clear. |
That's noble and try as a I might I am afraid I fall short. I am certainly not an expert in this matter, but do wish to learn more. The only problem is it takes scientists from many many different fields of I guess they are calling it "climate change science"....So for now as I learn I also read the different angles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheGreatNeoCon wrote: |
| Quote: | | That depends on what you mean by "doomed", and it depends on the timeframe you're talking about. |
Doesn't depend on anything. I see you to be a rational person that searches for truth. The sudden surge for this movement over the last couple of years is no secret. It's brought on by some rational thinking men and women of science. It's also brought to center stage by the likes of Al Gore and co. |
Oh, but it does depend.
In the long run, it may very well spell doom. We just don't know. The results will be somewhere between "extremely inconvenient" and "extinction".
| Quote: |
That's noble and try as a I might I am afraid I fall short. I am certainly not an expert in this matter, but do wish to learn more. The only problem is it takes scientists from many many different fields of I guess they are calling it "climate change science"....So for now as I learn I also read the different angles. |
The specific dynamics of it are very complex, but the basic science behind it is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGreatNeoCon
Not a Newbie
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Oh, but it does depend.
In the long run, it may very well spell doom. We just don't know. The results will be somewhere between "extremely inconvenient" and "extinction". |
It may or it may not. I believe I made a mistake. I thought you were replying to my statement of "That is an ambiguous statement is it not".
| Quote: | | The specific dynamics of it are very complex, but the basic science behind it is not. |
Well there are too many variables I want to learn before I have a firm opinion on the whole thing. Granted I don't have to become some expert in every major field on this debate, but there are important criteria to learn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
