So NOW you agree with me.
No. Specifically, you wanted the construction of the Belo Monte dam to go ahead. I opposed it.
You wanted the burning of fossil fuels to continue. I disagreed.
Topic: Your view on shale gas exploration ? - page 3. (Read 18686 times)
No. Specifically, you wanted the construction of the Belo Monte dam to go ahead. I opposed it.
You wanted the burning of fossil fuels to continue. I disagreed.
Thank you kindly for reminding me that I, after all, am no more than a bug or a worm.
Wait, something is not quite right there...
Wait, something is not quite right there...
I don't care what you are. If you want to build a dam, buy a few acres of land near your house and build one. Don't destroy the entire planet for your greed.
here you are talking about the direct impact of man's changes on the land.....you want to control his activities for the alleged impact of them half way around the world.
Thank you kindly for reminding me that I, after all, am no more than a bug or a worm.
Wait, something is not quite right there...
Wait, something is not quite right there...
I don't care what you are. If you want to build a dam, buy a few acres of land near your house and build one. Don't destroy the entire planet for your greed.
Who gives you the right to your attitude and beliefs being superior to those of others?
And who gives the right to destroy the planet, for which every living organism is having an equal right?
Thank you kindly for reminding me that I, after all, am no more than a bug or a worm.
Wait, something is not quite right there...
Who gives you the right to your attitude and beliefs being superior to those of others?
And who gives the right to destroy the planet, for which every living organism is having an equal right?
here you are talking about the direct impact of man's changes on the land.....you want to control his activities for the alleged impact of them half way around the world.
In this particular occasion we were talking about the Belo Monte dam. It doesn't have anything to do with the CO2 emissions.
Who gives you the right to your attitude and beliefs being superior to those of others?
here you are talking about the direct impact of man's changes on the land.....you want to control his activities for the alleged impact of them half way around the world.
In this particular occasion we were talking about the Belo Monte dam. It doesn't have anything to do with the CO2 emissions.
Yeah...but by this logic, not a single city would exist today. No farms, ranches, mines, quarries, and most fishing would not be allowed. Obviously war could not be permitted (lol). And here you are talking about the direct impact of man's changes on the land he does it on. Once you start talking about co2, then you want to control his activities for the alleged impact of them half way around the world.
Have fun!
Have fun!
Again, you are generalizing everything. The Alto Xingu region is one of the areas with highest biodiversity in the whole planet. Destroying 122,000 acres there is like destroying 122 million acres somewhere else, like Canada. We should at least preserve 1% of our planet, where the maximum amount of living species are found. Already only around 15% of the earth's area is under primary vegetation. The remaining has been cut down or destroyed by humans during the last few centuries.
Yes, I used generalization to illustrate your logical errors. Then I concluded with the end result of your manner of thinking...
here you are talking about the direct impact of man's changes on the land.....you want to control his activities for the alleged impact of them half way around the world.
Yeah...but by this logic, not a single city would exist today. No farms, ranches, mines, quarries, and most fishing would not be allowed. Obviously war could not be permitted (lol). And here you are talking about the direct impact of man's changes on the land he does it on. Once you start talking about co2, then you want to control his activities for the alleged impact of them half way around the world.
Have fun!
Have fun!
Again, you are generalizing everything. The Alto Xingu region is one of the areas with highest biodiversity in the whole planet. Destroying 122,000 acres there is like destroying 122 million acres somewhere else, like Canada. We should at least preserve 1% of our planet, where the maximum amount of living species are found. Already only around 15% of the earth's area is under primary vegetation. The remaining has been cut down or destroyed by humans during the last few centuries.
Exploration should be done sonographically rather than physically. The results of physical, on-the-job experience have unknown consequences for the future of the land where this is taking place. There is some correlative data to suggest fracking has caused localized earthquakes in Ohio, at least.
First of all, 'aquatic species' is a way different thing than 'fish'.
Either way, I am not comfortable with so many species dying out.
Have fun!
There isn't anything sacred about the pristine untouched state of nature. It's okay if we screw around with it.
Hmm... let me guess. Let's destroy this planet and its living things. After that what we'll do? Will we go to some other planet and do the same?
You can't walk down the street without crushing some helpless micro organisms. So where are you going to draw the line? More importantly, who draws the line?
If I go camping, shoot a deer, a rabbit and a pig, then collect some dead branches to make a fire and cook them with, I have altered the pristine untouched state of nature. So yes in part, you can say that we are going to 'destroy (a part of) the planet' with every single thing we do.
But we invented barbecue sauce for those tasty treats that we kill, skin and eat.
Must have been a reason.
First of all, 'aquatic species' is a way different thing than 'fish'.
Either way, I am not comfortable with so many species dying out.
There isn't anything sacred about the pristine untouched state of nature. It's okay if we screw around with it.
Hmm... let me guess. Let's destroy this planet and its living things. After that what we'll do? Will we go to some other planet and do the same?
How does putting about a 14x14 square mile piece of land under water kill off 600 species of fish?
The upper region of Xingu river is having a great variety of aquatic species, most of which is not found anywhere else. The ecology is very delicate and needs moving water to survive. If the water becomes static, then the food chain will become affected and the entire system will collapse.
As for the entire system collapsing, I don't think that's correct.
Change would occur as the two major rivers mixed their waters. Maybe several species of fish would die. Others of course, would thrive.
There isn't anything sacred about the pristine untouched state of nature. It's okay if we screw around with it. Now that we can mess with DNA, maybe we could bring species back, too. Some really weird ones would be cool. After all, this is the 21st century.
How does putting about a 14x14 square mile piece of land under water kill off 600 species of fish?
The upper region of Xingu river is having a great variety of aquatic species, most of which is not found anywhere else. The ecology is very delicate and needs moving water to survive. If the water becomes static, then the food chain will become affected and the entire system will collapse.
Beaver dam funding is needed for the good of the dead fish says the UN.
....
— Officials in Bonnyville, Alta., blew up more than 70 beaver dams....
— Officials in Bonnyville, Alta., blew up more than 70 beaver dams....
Cool....
Airstrikes?
CIA Drones...
Only bryant would know
HEADLINE: 600 Species of Fish Lost to Dam Beavers
Massive fish depopulation and species extinction is highly correlated with beaver dams, scientists say in the new issue of Climatic Changersaurus. Initial conclusions are that all the fish were eaten. Additional research is needed.
....
— Officials in Bonnyville, Alta., blew up more than 70 beaver dams....
— Officials in Bonnyville, Alta., blew up more than 70 beaver dams....
Cool....
Airstrikes?
CIA Drones...
Only bryant would know
....
— Officials in Bonnyville, Alta., blew up more than 70 beaver dams....
— Officials in Bonnyville, Alta., blew up more than 70 beaver dams....
Cool....
Airstrikes?
CIA Drones...
....
— Officials in Bonnyville, Alta., blew up more than 70 beaver dams....
— Officials in Bonnyville, Alta., blew up more than 70 beaver dams....
Cool....
Airstrikes?
CIA Drones...
....
— Officials in Bonnyville, Alta., blew up more than 70 beaver dams....
— Officials in Bonnyville, Alta., blew up more than 70 beaver dams....
Cool....
Airstrikes?
Jump to: