K-Mac Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Speaking of Bamboo and burials, some cemetaries actually offer burial in bamboo. Cardboard is another option. Cardboard?! What's the point? You might as well just throw the stiff into a hole! You know, I've just decided...I'm going to insist on having an eco-unfriendly funeral. Never mind the cremation...I want a casket made from some nearly extinct tree put in a marble vault. I want a caravan of Hummers to take my casket along with all of my family and friends to the burial site. I'll take to rotting in the ground if it will piss off some tree-huggin' hippie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moebius Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 No, it is montly. They call it montly commitment which means this is the minimum amount you have to spend montly. If you use one of their cars that month this fee will be a credit against other charges but if you don't you loose it unless you have one of the more expensive plans in which case you can roll it over meaning you won't loose the pre-paid credit for one or two months, depending on the plan.They have two plans. The one you're talking about is for people that drive often, and the one I'm talking about is the occasional driving plan. I only used the zipcar maybe once a week if that to grocery shop, so I got the later plan, and it's definitely cheaper than either regular rental or buying a car (and paying for parking + insurance) in the long run. It's simply very convenient if you live in an urban environment where you don't have to drive all the time.Avoiding using a single disposable product one day a week means ... NO TOILET PAPER!lol. That's one of the areas that I maintain a strict disposable-only policy on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua A Davis Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 I've just read through this thread and a few of the previous ones. Everyone seems to throw around names like tree hugger, hippy, eco-terrorist and even mongrels, but I haven't seen a single person post a single article from a scientifically founded source to say that global warming is in fact a hoax. Michael Crichton aside, a quick search on Wikipedia provides a host of references and further reading links (Source) and I'm sure looking on Google would turn up even more. Earlier this year, I took a public speaking course at my uni in which I was charged with doing three speeches on the topic of global warming. My instructor demanded numerous sources (at least 10) and recommended that I start by reading on Lexis Nexis. Let me tell you, for every 10 links that I found where people would say that global warming was something to worry about, I found one where someone say it was all a bunch of hoo-ha. Now what I found interesting was this: in my research, I came across articles that were written in 2001, 2003, 2004, etc up to the present. A vast range of scientific papers and news articles across a broad timeline. What I noticed was that the older the article, the more confusion there seemed to be in the author's opinion. In other words, in the articles from 2003, there was "no scientific consensus." In 2004, there was "no scientific consensus." In 2006, there was "some evidence pointing toward human impact on the environment." And in 2007, the overwhelming majority of my research stated that scientists were suddenly agreeing with each other that global warming was a real issue and had to be addressed, be it a researcher from MIT, from World Bank, etc. Now, I understand that I'm posting something that's contrary to a lot of people's opinions on this forum, and I've seen from reading other threads what happens in those cases. But know this: I would not classify myself as a leftist, tree-hugging hippy, mongrel, eco-terrorist, greenie freak. You can label me such if you want, but all I'm saying here is that my readings have indicated something vastly different than what you all say here. Does this mean I support the destruction of our economy? No. Do I support the enslavement of the free world? Absolutely not. Am I religiously fervent about pressing my opinions on people with regards to global warming? No. I'm simply searching for the truth here, and offering a different opinion than what's been shown here. I think it's completely possible to be concerned with man's impact on the world around us and concerned about our future (as all people should be with every aspect of life) without seeking to scare the living daylights out of anybody for the ulterior purpose of destroying your spirit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 (edited) I do not doubt that the Earth may be going through a warming trend, but I doubt that humans are causing it. I also believe that socialists are using global warming as an excuse to levy higher taxes and further restrictions on businesses and individuals alike. That is the problem I have with the whole argument. I think human ingenuity, creativity and capitalism will take care of any problems that arise in due time, if we can keep the government out of it! As far as tree-hugging, hippies, etc., I love the shade and beauty of a nice tree as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to ruin my own way of life to save a planet that doesn't need my saving and is quite capable of taking care of itself. Edited July 12, 2007 by K-Mac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Everyone seems to throw around names like tree hugger, hippy, eco-terrorist and even mongrels, but I haven't seen a single person post a single article from a scientifically founded source to say that global warming is in fact a hoax.That is because that is not actually the accusation. A hoax is a deliberate, knowing fraud. A scientific publication would obviously not consider the garbage in the popular eco-terrorist hippy press, it would only take into consideration scientific material in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. I personally don't believe that there are any studies in the scientific literature where we can presently prove that there is such fraud, that is, where a researcher falsified data. We know empirically that frauds do exist, and it is a source of concern as to how such frauds can be detected. The frauds arise outside of the scientific literature. The claims about global warming which we are generally addressing are not the scientific ones, they are the unscientific ones. The ones where, for example, it is asserted that there is a "trend" of global warming i.e. increased temperature on a global scale, or that it is significantly correlated with the actions of man. The latter claim enjoys no scientific support. There is a claim which is deserving of a small level of scrutiny, as being "possibly true", that there is a "trend" of warming. However, when you look at the raw data and ask "what do you mean by 'trend'?", I think the question dissolves into relativism. The "trend" can be established opportunistically, by looking at hypothesized temperatures over a period of N years so that you can establish (thanks to our friend Slobbering Regression Analysis) that given the right N, there is a "warming trend". However, given the longest range data possible, I don't believe it has been established that it is any warmer now that the long-term average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Okay, here is the truth about global warming. Your eyes cannot deceive you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenure Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 He he, I'm actually loving Norway's climate at the moment. It's a perfect blend of warm weather and a clean environment - fresh water, grass and no bugs looking to bite me in uncomfortable places. I missed my chance to go there again this year due to miscommunication, but I'll head out next year or maybe this Christmas. Maybe I'll send a postcard up above the circle when I'm there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Speaking of Bamboo and burials, some cemetaries actually offer burial in bamboo. Cardboard is another option. Cardboard?! What's the point? You might as well just throw the stiff into a hole! You know, I've just decided...I'm going to insist on having an eco-unfriendly funeral. Never mind the cremation...I want a casket made from some nearly extinct tree put in a marble vault. I want a caravan of Hummers to take my casket along with all of my family and friends to the burial site. I'll take to rotting in the ground if it will piss off some tree-huggin' hippie! Here's what you guys need: 10 Green Death Tips, by environmentalist Julia Hailes. See also my blog comments on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Here's what you guys need: 10 Green Death Tips, by environmentalist Julia Hailes. See also my blog comments on them. This stuff is crackin' me up! I guess environmentalism is like taxes and big government, they follow you from birth to death! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 We know empirically that frauds do exist, and it is a source of concern as to how such frauds can be detected. The frauds arise outside of the scientific literature. I don't know how accepted in scientific literature it is, but this is one example of fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 ... I'm saying here is that my readings have indicated something vastly different than what you all say here.You have not indicated anything other than the number of articles on one side and the other. One cannot use this as a basis for judgement. It's one thing if the minority was some non-scientist crank group, and all the scientists were on one side; however, that is not the case. In such a situation, you'd be wrong -- as a layperson -- to assume that the majority is correct. As a layperson, you really have two options in this situation. The first is to accept that experts disagree, and leave it at that. The second is to "peel back one more layer" and understand something more about what the two sides are saying. This does not mean you have to get an expert-level understanding, or anything like that -- all it means that you have to go beyond classifying expert opinion as "agrees with GW" or "disagrees with GW". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 I don't know how accepted in scientific literature it is, but this is one example of fraud.Yup. That's a good example of the eco-terrorists making stuff up. It ain't in the real science journals. One measure that I use is whether an author can actually provide direct quotes and citations from a scientific journal which I can actually check up on. A lack of citations and actual quotations is a frequent sign of shenanigans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadesofgrey Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Typical ignorant eco-terrorist hippy nonsense. That's the kind of short-term thinking that brought kudzu to the US or the cane toad to Australia. Bamboo is a cute, noxious week. It is highly invasive, destroys natural vegetation, and is extremely hard to eradicate. It is also the plant equivalent of nuclear sludge: it takes eons to bio-degrade, and is extremely unsafe in the meantime. The only practical solution is incineration, but it is a lousy fuel so it take vast amounts of fossil fuels to get rid of it. So whatever you do, do not plant bamboo. Plant a Douglas Fir instead. Nice shade tree, yields good lumber, helps the soil. Plus the tallest tree ever measured in North America was a Douglas. Speaking of Bamboo and burials, some cemetaries actually offer burial in bamboo. Cardboard is another option. I dunno man, I kind of like the idea of turning into something else useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) I dunno man, I kind of like the idea of turning into something else useful.One of my great grand-dads was likely placed in the open air for vultures to pick at his body (ref here). Why waste cardboard ! Edited July 2, 2009 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Patroller Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I have been receiving a weekly newsletter at work. Since about six months ago it started containing Environmental Tip of the Week. Here are some of my favorites: How come they don't tell you how many Indulgences you get for each of these religious activities. At least the Catholic Church did that Does that mans that bamboo is good to make the stake to drive through the hearts of Environmentalists, or some other variant of the Vlad Teppes game (as in where I'd like to really stick the bamboo stick)? 'J'a ever notice that you don't see Environmentalists and Pope Urban VIII in the same place at the same time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.