Baking Soda Could Save the Planet

[Big!]

By Megan Miller
(PopSci.com) -- In recent months, PopSci has covered various scientists' plans to curb global warming through carbon sequestration, mainly by feeding it to algae to make biofuel, or burying it underground.

Today, a ******* called Skyonic announced a novel new system, Skymine, which uses the carbon dioxide emitted from smokestacks to make baking soda. According to Skyonic CEO Joe David Jones, the system will be powered by waste heat from factories, and will produce food-grade baking soda.

Last year, the utility ******* Luminant installed a pilot version of the system at its Big Brown Steam Electric Station in Fairfield, Texas.

There's still quite a bit of work to be done to make the current system viable on a large scale, but the baking soda idea offers solutions to some of the economic problems posed by other carbon sequestration methods.

For starters, according to Jones, the stuff can be sold for home or industrial use or buried harmlessly in landfills or abandoned mines.

Jones apparently got the idea for the SkyMine system while watching a Discovery Channel show with his kids. He pulled out an old college science textbook and immediately turned to a passage about converting C02 to baking soda. He'd found it interesting years ago and highlighted it for future reference

Copyright © 2007 Popular Science

[V-Dogg]

Save the planet from what? Definitely not global warming (since that's just a big scam).

[Rudolf]

Save the planet from what? Definitely not global warming (since that's just a big scam).

sad :(

[Alex]

Ignorant post of the year goes to V-Dogg.

[Noone]

^^ definitely...

but that kinda reactions are sad :(

[mrnicksta]

he's not that wrong...

sure the planet may be warming up, but as far as i'm aware there is no definite proof it is down to us - the planet does go through environmental changes itself you know (ice ages etc)

also blame the cows and their blasted methane gas expulsion (ie. farting)

despite being a little sceptical, i don't like to assume that we aren't ruining the planet (cos even if we're not heating it up with our emissions, we're definitely ruining other aspects) cos at some point thats gonna come back to bite us in the ass.

however i wouldn't be surprised if it's all just panic mongering, advertising (so that we buy all these supposedly environmentally friendly products) and misinterpreting the information at hand, and that one day we realise it was all over nothing and perhaps we shoudl have spent more time dealing with other issues (deforestation amongst others)

[V-Dogg]

There's no scientific evidence to support global warming. Part of this is due to the fact that we haven't been keeping records long enough to have even the slightest clue as to how the Earth works (and I doubt we would even if we kept records for 1,000 years).

With no evidence supporting it and loads of evidence against it I choose to believe that global warming is complete and total bullshit. Here are some links to look at...

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/117100.aspx
http://bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/11/21/news/opinion/letters/143106.txt
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/11338421.html -- There are a few links in there that are well worth checking out.

[mrnicksta]

yeah i agree with you, but still, it could prove a huge disaster to completely ignore the possibility altogether

it won't hurt to cut down our carbon emissions though, so maybe even if it is a pile of bollocks, it may end up having a positive effect on our attitudes, and the planet in the long run

[Big!]

There's no scientific evidence to support global warming. Part of this is due to the fact that we haven't been keeping records long enough to have even the slightest clue as to how the Earth works (and I doubt we would even if we kept records for 1,000 years).

With no evidence supporting it and loads of evidence against it I choose to believe that global warming is complete and total bullshit. Here are some links to look at...

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/117100.aspx
http://bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/11/21/news/opinion/letters/143106.txt
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/11338421.html -- There are a few links in there that are well worth checking out.

There is a ton of evidence supporting global warming. Did you just not pay attention in science class or what? 99.9% of scientist agree that global warming is a serious issue, the other .1 % are on the corporate payroll. Your second link is from the "opinion" section. Where are your facts? Here are a few facts you should consider before making such outrageous claims.

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=136
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=4870

Who are you going to believe, scientists or television reporters? That's what it comes down to for me.

Big!

[preschooler]

v-dogg, seriously man? come on.

[Rudolf]

Once again big business and governments, throw up smoke screens and mirrors to confuse, discredit and turn public opinion against what has become an overwhelming scientific fact.

1000 years ago we did not have factories and cars spewing gasses into the sky at this alarming rate, we cannot blame cow farts for whatever ails us.

In the time scale of life on Earth the industrial revolution is extremely recent and you cannot possibly use records prior to this mass spewing of carbons into the air as justification to qualify theories that is a natural phenomenon.

The earth can absorb a certain amount of toxins but any reasonable and rational person, can see that we are heading for our own self destruction, unless we change the way we contribute to this situation.

For those who wish to bury their head in the sand and believe that this is the natural order of things, good luck on that and I sincerely hope that you are never in a position of authority that allows you to make a decision on my behalf in respect to global warming.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2553/globe1sr5.gif

[V-Dogg]

There is a ton of evidence supporting global warming. Did you just not pay attention in science class or what? 99.9% of scientist agree that global warming is a serious issue, the other .1 % are on the corporate payroll. Your second link is from the "opinion" section. Where are your facts? Here are a few facts you should consider before making such outrageous claims.

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=136
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=4870

Who are you going to believe, scientists or television reporters? That's what it comes down to for me.

Big!
I have spoken to a couple astronomers. Based on star charts gathered throughout history the absolute best explanation for the Earth warming up is that we're just coming out of a mini-ice age and the planet is returning to it's natural state and would be doing so regardless of cars and such.

Btw, I don't have cable so how am I gonna listen to TV reporters? I don't even get local channels (and when i'm at someone else's place I only watch sports).


Once again big business and governments, throw up smoke screens and mirrors to confuse, discredit and turn public opinion against what has become an overwhelming scientific fact.
That's right. I despise big businesses and can't stand politics so I must be listening to them! Thanks for clearing that up for me. :)

-----------

Bottom line is: I dismiss global warming as complete and total bullshit. Call me ignorant, call me stupid, call me whatever the fuck you like cuz it's not gonna change my views.

[Big!]

I have spoken to a couple astronomers. Based on star charts gathered throughout history the absolute best explanation for the Earth warming up is that we're just coming out of a mini-ice age and the planet is returning to it's natural state and would be doing so regardless of cars and such.

That doesn't make sense. Global warming is the cause of ice ages, not the result. Ice ages normally occur about every 150,000 years. The greenhouse effect caused by our polluting of the atmosphere is actually accelerating us towards the next ice age at a faster rate.

Btw, I don't have cable so how am I gonna listen to TV reporters? I don't even get local channels (and when i'm at someone else's place I only watch sports).

The links you posted as evidence for your conclusions above were from news sites and not from scientific reports.

Bottom line is: I dismiss global warming as complete and total bullshit. Call me ignorant, call me stupid, call me whatever the fuck you like cuz it's not gonna change my views.

This mentality is the main obstacle to solving this issue. Since so many people think this way, they continue to be a part of the problem and not part of the solution. Until we change your minds, we will all be destined to suffer the consequences of your actions and continued inaction. That's not to say you alone are responsible for global warming, we all are, therefore we all must change in order to effectively reduce carbon emissions. Not just those of us who are socially and environmentally conscious.

Big!

"We have not inherited the earth from our ancestors, we have only borrowed it from our children." --Ancient Chinese proverb

[V-Dogg]

That doesn't make sense. Global warming is the cause of ice ages, not the result. Ice ages normally occur about every 150,000 years. The greenhouse effect caused by our polluting of the atmosphere is actually accelerating us towards the next ice age at a faster rate.

So then why the motherfuck is it called global WARMING??????


The links you posted as evidence for your conclusions above were from news sites and not from scientific reports.

True, but they also included facts (especially the third link), and no matter where they're from facts remain facts.


This mentality is the main obstacle to solving this issue. Since so many people think this way, they continue to be a part of the problem and not part of the solution. Until we change your minds, we will all be destined to suffer the consequences of your actions and continued inaction. That's not to say you alone are responsible for global warming, we all are, therefore we all must change in order to effectively reduce carbon emissions. Not just those of us who are socially and environmentally conscious.

Well then... Have fun suffering. :)


"We have not inherited the earth from our ancestors, we have only borrowed it from our children." --Ancient Chinese proverb
Presumably written on Backwards Day.

[Rudolf]

Ignorance is bliss, especially when it does not appear to effect you directly.

[Big!]

The warming of the Earth causes the oceans temperature to increase, an increased temperature causes the deep ocean currents to change. When the deep ocean currents change, the weather begins to change (we are witnessing the start of this cycle already). The weather will only become more and more violent as the oceans warm and the levels rise. And inevitably the Earth will self adjust through an ice age at which point mankind will most likely cease to exist.

Big!

[V-Dogg]

We survived one ice age, we can survive another. Bring it on, nature!

[Rudolf]

Who are you going to believe, scientists or television reporters? Big!

Hmmm,

That's a tough one :rolleyes:

Lets see, a scientist examines events by observations and through a detailed thorough analyzing of all materials at hand, comes to a scientific conclusion based on all the facts available, not prejudiced by emotion or personal gain.

A reporter, examines events by observations and through detailed analyzing, decides on the most speculative stance to enable them to sell more papers or get more air time, regardless of the facts.

:D

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story :eek:

[Rudolf]

Once again Australia finds the solution to a world problem. :)

We are going to breed and export more kangaroos around the world, problem solved.

Kangaroo farts 'could fight global warming'

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/74/0612kangarooa5f203bra1.jpg

Australian scientists are trying to give kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep in a bid to cut the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, researchers say.

Thanks to special bacteria in their stomachs, kangaroo flatulence contains no methane and scientists want to transfer that bacteria to cattle and sheep who emit large quantities of the harmful gas.

While the usual image of greenhouse gas pollution is a billowing smokestack pushing out carbon dioxide, livestock passing wind contribute a surprisingly high percentage of total emissions in some countries.

[mrnicksta]

A reporter, examines events by observations and through detailed analyzing, decides on the most speculative stance to enable them to sell more papers or get more air time, regardless of the facts.


normally i would agree with that comment but the issue of global warming has the opposite effect on the media - since global warming is the new topic of interest for all

i'd firstly like to say, i'm not totally writing off global warming, but i am a little speculative.

as for news reporters, a lot of reports are about global warming and how to solve it. these days global warming is the current topic of interest. global warming stories will sell more, so you cannot say that people are being misled into thinking it doersn't exist - in fact it's the opposite, people are led, in all the media, into believing global warming exists (in fact they never, ever mention the fact that it might not exist, because that would cause them to "sell less")

a vast percentage of adverts use global warming as a way of selling their products, by saying "they've cut carbon emissions whilst making this product" (or somethin similar)

thus you canot blame the media for misleading about global warming, because a lot of companies use the image of a friendly ******* trying to battle global warming to their advantage/benefit/gain - relying on the fact that there is such an effect!

i'm not really on either side of the fence with the issue, i'm not entirely convinced it exists, but i'm not entirely convinced that it doesn't exist.... but i do know that it's too big of a threat to ignore (even if i am sceptical) and thus support any scheme that may offlay such a devastating (though not definite) effect on the planet

[Rudolf]

Hey mrnicksta,

That post was more tongue-in-cheek than anything else :) but, my post about skippy was a real post :)

Good to see another person take the time and get involved in some discussions. :0

[mrnicksta]

i was meant to do a multiquote and got lazy, so it looks like i singled you out on there, but it was also directed at big! who was also (i believe) blaming the media for v-dogg's controversial views.

but you do see my point? the media is all over the "save the world" bandwagon these days, that is what sells, so if we are that affected by what we see/read then we would all be blindly "saving the world".

....and also, i love joining in the think tank discussions! it's great fun discussing the unanswerable!

[Big!]

These days that may be the case, but the past coverage by the media is mainly responsible for alot of the myths that exist about global warming today. Global warming is backed up by scientific evidence. All one need do is go out to the coast and measure the ocean level at the point each year and you will realize it is rising. All one need do is visit the ice caps a few times and you will realize they are melting. All one need do is take the temperature of the ocean and you will realize it's changing.

Big!

[Memento Mori]

But is there proof it is because of the industrial era?

[Big!]

The greenhouse effect.

[Memento Mori]

How does that prove it is mankind's fault?

[Big!]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the vast amounts of carbon in the atmostphere is the result of automobiles and factories and not cow farts.

Big!

[Memento Mori]

Whatever your reasoning, it doesn't prove it. :)

[Big!]

So if can't unequivocably prove that industrialization is the cause, we shouldn't try to fix it, even though we can prove that that the problem exists?

Big!

[Memento Mori]

I never said that. :)

[Big!]

Good, because I'm not trying to prove the cause of the problem here, that will get us nowhere in this debate. There are always those who will say, but what if this or how do you know it's not that. This is not what is at issue, the issue is that global warming does exists, and we should all do our part to help solve the problem. We can reduce carbon emissions in our homes, plant trees, drive our cars less, quit purchasing from companies who are part of the problem and not part of the solution, and the list goes on. Yes, some of these choices are hard, but sacrifices have to be made. I sacrificed when I sold my Corvette and replaced it with a 35 mile-per-gallon Kia, but it was the right thing to do. My energy efficient lightbulbs cost more, but my electric bill is now less. I do enjoy the shade provided by the trees I planted in my yard though. :)

Big!

[Memento Mori]

So if can't unequivocably prove that industrialization is the cause, we shouldn't try to fix it, even though we can prove that that the problem exists?

Big!

Ah, but surely if we can't prove that what we are doing is actually the problem, surely stopping what we are currently doing might not have much of an effect?

[Big!]

Changing our actions will have the effect of reducing carbon emissions. Carbon emissions are the problem. Therefore changing our actions can only help.

Big!

[Rudolf]

People will not need convincing when the damage done is irreversible, then they will cry to their respective governments, "something needs to be done" , but it will be too late.

These problems are generational, although the effects are relatively minor at the moment, your kids and their kids will be effected far more worse that we are today.

Unfortunately, the doubters of today will not be around to face the criticisms and see the legacy of their inactions and contributions.

[Big!]

Yet current estimates suggest that the effects will reach the irreversible point within the next 35 years.

Big!

[Memento Mori]

I do remember reading a huge article about 18 months ago, that talked about the end of the industrial age of man in the next 100 years (or something like that). I was trying to find it a month or so ago, but I couldn't find it.

[Rudolf]

How do you convince someone of something, armed with all the scientific knowledge at hand the proves the existence of a life changing event in the making?

I suppose there are enough spin doctors trying to confuse the issue.

The same spin doctors that said:

Smoking is not harmful to your health.
Blue Asbestos is harmless.

[Big!]

Or the same spin doctors that created the phrases:

Tree Hugger
Bleeding Heart Liberal

[Rudolf]

Or the same spin doctors that created the phrases:

Tree Hugger
Bleeding Heart Liberal


Designed to mock, ridicule and mask.

[Big!]

Exactly. It's a shame that in our society those who are socially conscious are condemned to ridicule. That those who stand up and fight for something they believe in are made out to be and dismissed as nut cases.

Big!

[V-Dogg]

Will someone please answer this one question for me? Just this one!

I have pointed out before in many places and to many people that it's not getting warmer, but colder (at least it is where I live). Everyone who supports global warming has told me that it's getting colder because of global warming. I just want to know.... How does that make sense? That's a complete and total contradiction. 'Warm' is quite clearly the exact opposite of 'cold' and anyone who says or thinks otherwise should refer to a dictionary.

[Rudolf]

A blind person cannot see what is in front of them.

If your going to ignore scientific fact and accept rumor and supposition backed by those who have agendas not in line with the main line community, then your closed to the proof that is already widely available.

Simply google your question and read, don't show your ignorance to a subject by simply not reading the material available.

[V-Dogg]

You're implying that you are unable to answer the question. Can you at least think of any possible reason why something so scientific would be called by the opposite of what it is? And if global warming is making things colder then why is one of the main arguments to support global warming the melting ice cap? (which is, btw, getting thicker at the top)

I'm wanting you to answer my question. Not Google.

[Rudolf]

It does not matter what reference I direct you to, you will simply post an opposite view, what is the point. You clearly do not agree with the premise of Global Warming, that is your right not to believe, I choose to believe and that is my right.

[V-Dogg]

You sir, are avoiding the question. :)

[Rudolf]

You sir, are avoiding the question. :)

What I am avoiding, is subjecting myself your inane questions and engaging in an unfruitful debate whereas no logic is being employed.

All you need to do, is to read widely and with an open mind and come to a logical conclusion on the facts presented to you by the vast material that has been written about this issue.

Don't limit yourself to one side of the argument and then pose questions that demonstrate that you have not done the research.

This issue is too serious to be mocked and played with.

As an individual your decision to do nothing, is your choice. As a society and members of the human race, not bounded by imaginary lines drawn on a map, if something is not done and the warnings are ignored, then what?

What are the implications of failing to address this issue?

[V-Dogg]

Why can't you understand that I want you to answer the question? What's so difficult about that? If you've read about and you know the answer then why can't you just answer the question? Or perhaps you fail to realize the significance of answering it yourself?

In response to the last part of your post: That you can't or won't answer my question.

And in response to the first part of your post: Yep. You're definitely avoiding the question. And quite obviously at that.

[Rudolf]

I am very happy you want ME to answer your questions on global warming, I am trying to figure out why I have been blessed with this task to answer your questions when I notice the others have left this thread. They are obviously smarter than I am.

To be honest, I cannot be bothered trying to convince you about global warming or to answer your questions.

Your lack of reading is quite obvious, you have a closed mind on this subject and it is akin to me bashing my head against a brick wall trying to discuss anything with a person who doesn't have an open mind.

I choose not to enter into any further dialog on this subject with you as it goes nowhere, except for your continual inane questions and your failing to do any research.

[V-Dogg]

Yes, you're right. It's going nowhere. However, should you answer my question it might start going again. But clearly you have chosen to avoid my question.

[Rudolf]

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/2686/pullhaire1277c0ds8.png

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3814/bangheadheree12bfb6fs5.png

[V-Dogg]

*sigh* Why don't you just say that you don't know the answer? v_v

[Big!]

Where do you live? It's getting warmer here. And I already answered the question of how global warming leads to an ice age earlier in the thread. As for it "getting colder," it's not, we've recorded record highs numerous times since the early 90s.

Big!

[V-Dogg]

I live in Tacoma, Washington. Last winter was the coldest I can remember (if we get any snow at all it's hardly any and last winter we got quite a bit and it froze). Looks like it's gonna be colder this year as it's already snowed a couple times (it never snows until late January / early February).

And since i'm too lazy to look through the topic, can you please repost what you said about global warming and an ice age?

And btw, those record highs are only record highs as far as we know. There easily could've been higher temperatures in the past. Just so it doesn't come up later: I'm not saying this disproves anything. I'm just saying we don't know.

[Big!]

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/2004-01-08-answers-warming-gulf-stream_x.htm

[V-Dogg]

Meh. So we'll go through the Dark Ages again. Who cares? Just wrap up in something warm and don't be an idiot about things.

[Big!]

I care, and I'm sure there are others like me.

Big!

[V-Dogg]

Just make sure you dress warm enough and make sure you got the right supplies and you'll live. I'm assuming you have enough time?

[Big!]

Enough time?

[V-Dogg]

To get stuff... You know... Warm clothes, food, etc. Basic survival stuff.

[Big!]

Instead of preparing to survive an ice age, why not work to prevent one?

Big!

thinkthinkthinkthinkthinkthinkthink do!

[V-Dogg]

Because it's very possible that this is part of a natural cycle or is due to natural causes. We've nowhere near enough data about the planet and the weather to know for sure if it's the fault of humanity. So while trying to prevent such a thing is just fine and dandy, if it turns out to be a natural causes then what are you gonna do? And what are you doing now, apart from sitting on your ass talking about it? Also, why can't you do BOTH??? I'm pretty damn sure you have the time.

[Big!]

If you bothered to read the thread you would know I am working to do my part. I explained it earlier in the thread. Your argument is a result of flawed logic and your counter-arguments lack merit since you refuse to read the thread. As for time, I work 40 hours a week plus attend classes at my university full time and still find time to do my part. What is your excuse?

Big!

[V-Dogg]

If you bothered to read the thread you would know I am working to do my part. I explained it earlier in the thread. Your argument is a result of flawed logic and your counter-arguments lack merit since you refuse to read the thread. As for time, I work 40 hours a week plus attend classes at my university full time and still find time to do my part. What is your excuse?

Big!
No, it's not flawed logic. It is FACT that we have VERY LITTLE DATA ABOUT THE WEATHER AND HOW THE PLANET WORKS, thus it is entirely POSSIBLE that the happenings with the weather are NATURAL and that EITHER WAY it should be LOGICAL to stockpile FOOD AND SUPPLIES as a PRECAUTION. That would perfectly logical and should actually be encouraged, because if you have a plan A then you need a plan B in case plan A goes to Hell.

Excuse for what? Not doing anything? My excuse for not doing anything is that I don't think it has anything to do with anything mankind is doing. That i'm more concerned with getting 4-year old Matches and enough match heads to sink a battleship. (before you say anything: that does make sense, you just have to figure it out)

[Big!]

What the hell do match heads have to do with anything?

[V-Dogg]

Lots. Just nothing to do with global warming. But it's specifically 4-year old ones. Besides, I said that it makes sense but you have to figure it out. Clearly you didn't, but that's ok. I doubt anyone on here will.

[Big!]

Well how about this, I'll put it into context for you...

Let us say that one match head alone can not sink a battleship, yet millions or even billions can. One car cannot create enough carbon emissions to adversely affect our environment, yet there are billions of cars on the road, combined with thousands of factories, combined with fossil fuel burning electric plants around the world, and the list goes on. Now do you really believe that with all the pollutants that mankind dumps into the atmosphere every second of every day that cow farts are the real cause of our problems? Or that we have not created the problem? One match head can sink that battleship when it ignites the billions that are sitting right beside it. One car can pollute the environment to the point where our planet is no longer inhabitable when it causes everyone in the world to want to keep up with the Jones', so to speak, and get a car of their own. How is that for understanding?

Big!

[V-Dogg]

Part about the match heads made me laugh.

And while we may have carbon emissions, electric powered ("green") cars are not better. The places in which they are made and the way they are disposed of ain't exactly the best things for the environment. Although I have said for years that cars should switch to being powered by any number of things that would not only be cheaper, but would get tons more mileage to the gallon and are much better for the environment. I believe vegetable oil was one thing, and if I remember correctly both alcohol and rubbing alcohol are a couple more (i'm sure there are far more than that but I can't be bothered to look them up). Although I don't say this because of the environment. I say this because the gas prices are fucking insane and it's only logical to switch to something that's cheaper, gets better mileage, and as an added bonus is better for the environment.

Btw, earlier today I was hanging out in my driveway listening to the Sex Pistols. I was getting kinda cold so I got a couple broken chairs outta the garage, doused 'em in gas, and torched the fuckers. Warmed me up quite nicely. ^_^

[mrnicksta]

I believe vegetable oil was one thing, and if I remember correctly both alcohol and rubbing alcohol are a couple more (i'm sure there are far more than that but I can't be bothered to look them up).

yup, alcohol can be used, and IS used in brazil i think (under the name "gasohol"). hemp oil can also be used to power cars (see http://www.hempcar.org/), create a lot of paper and other fibrous material - saving on trees and other plants. you can get X4 as much paper per unit area of hemp compared with regular paper giving trees. it's also easy to grow (as it is a very hardy plant) and will literally grow practically anywhere on earth (even on the himalayas)... but shit, i shoudln't be talking about this just in case a future employer is reading :eek:

i think a one car per household rule shoudl be enforced anyways, that'll immediately cut the number of cars on the road and make people more sensible about their car usage (i.e. not using the car for a journey that would take 5 mins on foot)

[V-Dogg]

i think a one car per household rule shoudl be enforced anyways, that'll immediately cut the number of cars on the road and make people more sensible about their car usage (i.e. not using the car for a journey that would take 5 mins on foot)
And what about households that have two or more people that have to be places at different times? If my parents were still together that'd never work because my dad has to go to work at 3 AM and my mom needs to go to school at 9 AM. And she wouldn't take the bus cuz it'd take an hour and a half, by which time her class would be over. Plus she has to get my siblings on their school bus at 8 AM anyway, which would be impossible to do if she got on a bus a half hour earlier than that.

Besides that, forcing a household to have only one car (which would take away the rights of many people to own a car) or forcing people to not drive places that would take 5 mins to walk to (which would effect people who either can't walk or have trouble walking) would be a fascist policy. And if you say that each individual should only be allowed to own one car then I also disagree with that. Although i'm sure loads of people would say this example has nothing to do with it, i'm going to say this as an example.... That's like making it illegal for people to have some (note: SOME not ALL) backup plans.

[mrnicksta]

ok maybe the logistics of my idea are not perfect but you can see my point. some people have like 4 cars in one household and the majority of the time they are all sitting outside the house - that is not necessary.

it's hardly fascist though. you can't just throw that word at any sort of restrictions, because it is hardly an extreme right wing policy.

of course there are exceptions to any rule, someone who can't walk properly would need some kind of mobility transport, but not everyone needs a car, and the truth is the majority of people can easily walk for over half hour with no problems whatsoever - and more people should exercise (pun intended) their ability to walk places (or cycle, which is generally much quicker than driving in built up urban areas) rather than be lazy and drive everywher

[V-Dogg]

ok maybe the logistics of my idea are not perfect but you can see my point. some people have like 4 cars in one household and the majority of the time they are all sitting outside the house - that is not necessary.

it's hardly fascist though. you can't just throw that word at any sort of restrictions, because it is hardly an extreme right wing policy.

of course there are exceptions to any rule, someone who can't walk properly would need some kind of mobility transport, but not everyone needs a car, and the truth is the majority of people can easily walk for over half hour with no problems whatsoever - and more people should exercise (pun intended) their ability to walk places (or cycle, which is generally much quicker than driving in built up urban areas) rather than be lazy and drive everywher
While I see your point that some people may have cars for pointless reasons, you can't force things like that on to people, hence why I called it a fascist policy. Not because of of the restricting nature of it, but because of the forceful nature of it.

[Big!]

Growing hemp would actually help the environment tremendously. I read an article about that awhile back.

Big!

[mrnicksta]

see, cannabis isn't that bad!

and to v-dogg: let me pose this thought - do you think it is fascist for china to operate a one child policy so that the small amount of money that most of their citizens have gets spread even thinner across the populace?

[V-Dogg]

see, cannabis isn't that bad!

and to v-dogg: let me pose this thought - do you think it is fascist for china to operate a one child policy so that the small amount of money that most of their citizens have gets spread even thinner across the populace?
Yes I do think it's a fascist policy. I believe that people have to right to have as many kids as they want. And I hate the fact that the people there don't make much money, considering how much stuff comes out of China.

[shifted]

^^ i thought they changed that policy already?

something about.. if you have a girl, then you can try again, if you have another girl, you can try again. if you have another girl, your fucked. if you have a boy thats it. as soon as you have a boy, no more kids.

and global warming to me is a fucked issue..

the earths natural evolution has to be accounted for itself.

when the earth had an ice age.. are you telling me that was global warming too? cos there was in no way any polution was caused by us back then!!

the earth goes through its own evolution, just like the magnetic fields of the earth switch every now and then.

i personally do not think global warming is something we can help. whether you believe any "facts" or not. the truth is, the majority of the facts are made up bullshit in the first place..

personally, i think the earths core is heating up somewhat and its causing an imbalance somehow. something within the earth itself is causing this. not us.

but then again, thats my opinion.

[Big!]

Global warming is accelerating the Earth's natural cycle. Science is not made up bullshit.

Big!

[debo12]

Only god knows about Global warming!

[Big!]

Why do you have to bring your imaginary friend into this issue?

[kenz]

because they are comforting

[Big!]

Some would call that schizophrenia.

Big!

[kenz]

Some would call that schizophrenia.

Big!

some would say schizophrenic people can be happy

[debo12]

Why do you have to bring your imaginary friend into this issue?

Who me?

[nickh155]

^^ i thought they changed that policy already?

something about.. if you have a girl, then you can try again, if you have another girl, you can try again. if you have another girl, your fucked. if you have a boy thats it. as soon as you have a boy, no more kids.

and global warming to me is a fucked issue..

the earths natural evolution has to be accounted for itself.

when the earth had an ice age.. are you telling me that was global warming too? cos there was in no way any polution was caused by us back then!!

the earth goes through its own evolution, just like the magnetic fields of the earth switch every now and then.

i personally do not think global warming is something we can help. whether you believe any "facts" or not. the truth is, the majority of the facts are made up bullshit in the first place..

personally, i think the earths core is heating up somewhat and its causing an imbalance somehow. something within the earth itself is causing this. not us.

but then again, thats my opinion.

"The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused "considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure." Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures."

More information can be found at the following website; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060314170208.htm

Understand that the following is only a theory, fairly well supported theory but a theory none-the-less. I request that shifted look into this then provide a response back. thanks!

[nickh155]

some would say schizophrenic people can be happy

"Schizophrenia is characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality, most commonly manifesting as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions"

it seems to me that you & Debo are both experiencing these symptons. this is unfortunate because this is a very serious problem present day. do not mock big

[Rudolf]

Bi polar is more fun to have :D

[nickh155]

is this not the intellectual thread?

[kenz]

is this not the intellectual thread?

you obviously dont see the point in what i said so get out the "intellectual thread"

the schizoprhenic comment was a metaphor for people who believe in god
they can be happy, if its what they beleive in, good luck to them

i hate atheists as much as religious people, jus a bunch of ****s