Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Irreversible climate damage is imminent
- Thread starter Tupac
- Start date
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
So what?
Sajak is rather irrelevant. Also, if someone wants to make an ass of themselves, then they should be free to do so.
Climate change may be imminent...or not....depending on who you believe....
Problem is...I almost don't care....
Why?
Everyday I am bombarded by a dozen media sources with "causes" that I should care about......cause after cause after cause after cause after cause ad infinitum.
There are simply too many......
You name it....it's an epidemic that needs fixing.
It always filters down to me and the general public.....if we do something inane like turn off a lightbulb or send some money to something it will be fixed.....
It never is.......it just goes on and on and on and on.
I'm tired of the constant barrage......
The more causes you throw at me ...the more apathetical I'm going to get.
Problem is...I almost don't care....
Why?
Everyday I am bombarded by a dozen media sources with "causes" that I should care about......cause after cause after cause after cause after cause ad infinitum.
There are simply too many......
You name it....it's an epidemic that needs fixing.
It always filters down to me and the general public.....if we do something inane like turn off a lightbulb or send some money to something it will be fixed.....
It never is.......it just goes on and on and on and on.
I'm tired of the constant barrage......
The more causes you throw at me ...the more apathetical I'm going to get.
It's important not to mix up "media hysteria" with "stuff worth giving a crap about".
Unfortunately both of these are reported on hysterically in the media.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Tell me how irrelevant he is when you're stuck and need to buy a vowel!So what?
Sajak is rather irrelevant. Also, if someone wants to make an ass of themselves, then they should be free to do so.
Even if scientists don't agree with you, you'll always have the host of "the game show for idiots" on your side
If you take your scientific and worldwide species survival advice from a guy who makes a living rewarding grown adults that can spell, I'm sure you will one day qualify for a Darwin Award.
That show has subliminal messages aimed at the old folks. Advertising and such. And don't worry about needing a vowel to solve the "puzzle" because I'm sure the contestants are prompted to buy as many as they can to keep angry viewer mail down.
I thought it was smarter and better when Chuck Woolery was the host and they had to buy crap with their earnings.
*** am I saying. Goll.
I thought it was smarter and better when Chuck Woolery was the host and they had to buy crap with their earnings.
*** am I saying. Goll.
Last edited:
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I found a transcript from 1985, where during the showcase an unexpected outburst may've foreshadowed this:
"I'll go with Gucci gift certificate for $250, Pat."
"Of course you would you unpatriotic racist. A real American would've picked the selection of Parker Brothers board games. Why do you hate our country and believe their lies?!"
When my mom passed a few years ago, I had to go to the Cemetary to iron out final stuff and I saw Chuck Woolery everywhere, on brochures and signage. He went from big name game show host, to Game Show Network host, to pimping Cemetary plots. That Pat Sajak is NOT a decent fellow by any stretch.
And Zulu back at ya
Ngiyaqonda. Iphuzu lami ngingu thina abantu bezikhukhumeza futhi bacabange ukuthi uma singazi ezikhona ke lutho uyakwenza. Ukuphila kwaba ngaphambi kwethu. Live kuyoba emva kwethu.
Yeah... I consider myself an environmentalist, and I even run a non-profit that works in rainforest conservation. But, I think I am with you - too much going wrong and nothing is "really" getting fixed. We might be prolonging things, but a 7 billion strong human nature will never save anything at the risk of not living the big life. We will have our giant trucks, eat literally tons of meat and air condition everything way before we worry about any kind of natural life systems. How many people sit and watch the plight of polar bears on big screen TV's in their cushy environment controlled houses with 2-4 cars in the driveway and styrofoam in the trash can and 10 basses hanging on the walls? I can't even exempt myself from that even though I try to buy small cars and houses, I am still part of the problem and don't rightly know that I am willing to change any further. I would just live it up and not worry about it if I did not feel so guilty about my children and what they will inherit. I also live in a Red State, so environmental concerns are really of no concern. Oh well, easy come easy go. Who wants a cold beer!! :0)
The climate changes regardless of our participation. Always has, always will.
When the global warming fanatics realized there has been no warming for over 15 years and the polar ice cap has increased by 1 million square miles, they changed the name to Climate Change.
Their insistance that it is all us and that only a prestince Earth with no dastardly humans is a good thing are:
Now, I am not saying we should not be responsible stewards of Earth. We definitely should. We can certainly make a local mess that causes a multitue of problems, but I don't think without setting off every nuclear device on the planet simultaneously we can destroy life on Earth.
When the global warming fanatics realized there has been no warming for over 15 years and the polar ice cap has increased by 1 million square miles, they changed the name to Climate Change.
Their insistance that it is all us and that only a prestince Earth with no dastardly humans is a good thing are:
- Part of the liberal movement that uses this as a way to increase government control of our lives.
- Is sucked in by those in group 1.
Now, I am not saying we should not be responsible stewards of Earth. We definitely should. We can certainly make a local mess that causes a multitue of problems, but I don't think without setting off every nuclear device on the planet simultaneously we can destroy life on Earth.
Okay, so we all live in caves or teepees, we walk everywhere, we die when we get a mild illness, music consists of banging on logs, skulls, or any object that will make a sound. It is bad to kill animals, so we survice on berries, leaves, and grass.
So were do we get clothes without damaging the fragile environment?
Can we at least stay in the area of reasonable?
I don't think anyone claims we are the only impact on the climate, that'd be crass, we are however capable of limiting our impact on those climate changes.
The "no warming in 15 years" claim is sketchy at best, certainly making use of selective data. It's also worth noting that climate and local temperature are different things. I'd argue that they moved away from the term "global warming" simply because people didn't grasp the concept of global climate... "Global warming? But it's snowing outside!"
The "no warming in 15 years" claim is sketchy at best, certainly making use of selective data. It's also worth noting that climate and local temperature are different things. I'd argue that they moved away from the term "global warming" simply because people didn't grasp the concept of global climate... "Global warming? But it's snowing outside!"
I love your logic...because a game show host says is on one side of the debate, everyone who is on the same side now takes advice from a game show host?
I'll use the same logic. Who do you take your scientific advice on climate change from? Daryl Hannah or Leonardo DiCaprio?
