How many Prius owners believe in Global Warming theory?

His argument, however hard you try to change, redefine it, dismiss it or misdirect it is . . .

AFAIK natural resources are not confined to a specific area therefore , the answer is none. No matter how you try to limit the area or change the topic by arguing the existence or non-existance of an event those "natural resources" still exist. End of story? Probably not.

 

Well, I just left the Ontario, CA shot show, and I purchased the very last brick of .223, exhausting their supply.

But, we're hardly out of .223 worldwide, in the USA, or even California,

and guess what ...

we're not out of top soil either.

 

I don't know of any natural resources that have been completely consumed, assuming we aren't talking about extinct species. I can, however, think of a large number of natural resources that have become quite scarce, and consequently, very expensive. This even includes many renewable resources, such as tropical hardwoods, which are renewable but take a long time to grow.

Tom

 

Aw crud. Everybody else beat me too the extinction stuff. So what DO we call a resource?

Plants aren't resources? Or just the ones that are depleted don't count as resources? Is the definition of a resource something that we still have some of? Then I agree with your theory!

Just what is a resource, and from where does it need to be depleted to fit your theory? I think that's the big thing missing here. We don't know the rules, so the debate is just a wee bit difficult.

 

That ain't all that's a wee difficult to do when your trying to make a point around here!

 

Environmental science is not just generalized by the entire globe: it can be for a local environment as well. But no matter what logic is used, I know your answer will always be "we're not out of it"

 

Well when I google extinct species of hardwood, I do find a list. I don't know how many were used as a resource for humans, but I do seem to remember there are certain strains of ebony that are extinct and sought after:

Africa

Acalypha rubrinervis (1870, Saint Helena)
Anogramma ascensionis (1958, Ascension Island)
Usambara Annone – Anonidium usambarense (1910, Tanzania)
Byttneria ivorensis (1896, Côte d'Ivoire)
Coffea lemblinii (1907, Côte d'Ivoire)
Dryopteris ascensionis (1889, Ascension Island)
Erythrina schliebenii (1938, Tanzania)
St. Helena Heliotrope – Heliotropium pannifolium (1808, Saint Helena)
Saint Helena Olive – Nesiota elliptica (2003, Saint Helena)
Oldenlandia adscenionis (1889, Ascension Island)
Pausinystalia brachythyrsum (1898, Cameroon)
Silphium — Ferula ? (c. 50, Cyrene)
Sporobolus durus (1886, Ascension Island)
St. Helena Ebony – Trochetiopsis melanoxylon (1771, Saint Helena)


Americas

Galapagos Amaranth – Blutaparon rigidum (1999, Galápagos)
Rio de Janeiro Myrtle – Campomanesia lundiana (1825, Brazil)
Casearia quinduensis (1997, Colombia)
Rio de Janeiro Sapota – Chrysophyllum januariense (1997, Brazil)
Havana Fragrant Tree – Cnidoscolus fragrans (1840, Cuba)
Santa Cruz Bryophyte – Flabellidium spinosum (1911, Bolivia)
Cuban Ruta Tree – Galipea ossana (1825, Cuba)
Rio de Janeiro Myrtle – Gomidesia cambessedeana (1825, Brazil)
Cuban Guettarda Tree – Guettarda retusa (1975, Cuba)
Cuban Holly – Ilex ternatiflora (1950, Cuba)
Licania caldasiana (1997, Colombia)
Mason River Myrtle – Myrcia skeldingii (1972, Jamaica)
Hastings County Neomacounia – Neomacounia nitida (1864, Canada)
Extinct spruce - Picea critchfieldi (Late Pleistocene, North America)
Rio de Janeiro Pouteria – Pouteria stenophylla (1997, Brazil)
Cajamarca Pradosia – Pradosia argentea (1820, Peru)
Rio de Janeiro Pradosia – Pradosia glaziovii (1997, Brazil)
Colombian Pradosia – Pradosia mutisii (1925, Colombia)
Jamaican Psidium – Psidium dumetorum (1976, Jamaica)
Juan Fernandez Santalum – Santalum fernandezianum (1908, Chile)
Thismia americana – Thismia americana (1916, Chicago, IL, USA)

Asia

Adiantum lianxianense (Guangdong, China)
Sri Lanka Legume Tree – Crudia zeylanica (1990, Sri Lanka)
Kerala Legume Tree – Cynometra beddomei (1870, India)
Sumatra Dipterocarpus – Dipterocarpus cinereus (1996, Sumatera, Indonesia)
Arunchal Hopea Tree – Hopea shingkeng (1996, India)
Nilgiri Holly – Ilex gardneriana (1859, India)
Karnataka Sapota – Madhuca insignis (1900, India)
Hainan Ormosia – Ormosia howii (1997, Southern China)
Hainan Otophora – Otophora unilocularis (1935, Hainan, China)
Pluchea glutinosa (19th Century, Yemen)
Psiadia schweinfurthii (19th Century, Yemen)
Sarawak Shorea – Shorea cuspidata (1996, Malaysia)
Meghalaya Sterculia – Sterculia khasiana (1877, India)
Muthukuzki Syzygium – Syzygium gambleanum (1997, India)
Valerianella affinis (19th century, Yemen)
Courtallum Wendlandia – Wendlandia angustifolia (1997, India)
Woolly-stalked Begonia - Begonia eiromischa (20th century, Penang, Malaysia)


Europe

Astragalus nitidiflorus (1909, Spain)
Italian Bryophyte – Radula visiniaca (1938, Italy)
Cry Pansy – Viola cryana (1933, France)

 

Does this mean that the Soil Conservation Service (now renamed Natural Resources Conservation Service)has been another money-wasting federal boondoggle for the past 75 years?

 

You tell me ...

have I been preaching irresponsible environmental stewardship?

Do I appear unaware of the tragedy of such events such as the Dust Bowl, which StevO referenced earlier in the thread?

Is your question truly a question, or are you baiting and trolling to see if your nemesis Sarah Palin is actually posting under my screen name?

I'm not an advocate of irresponsible environmental exploitation ... I am not pro-pollution or a carcinogen peddler.

I made an assertion that I do not subscribe to Global Warming Theory, and that I similarly dispute Depleted Resources Theory ... that is all.

In response, it was suggested that I am blind, ignorant and refuse to see.

I've made my point ... I'm satisfied.

The issue could use a little more balance, and a little more scrutiny.

Folks, no matter how good their intentions, may want to be a little more tempered in their reactions to climate change theory, resource conservation strategies, and their responses to people who may not believe exactly as they do.

No different than the 10:10 advertisement, suggesting, even jokingly, killing dissenters, or folks who aren't as convinced as you may be, is more than simply off-putting, beyond simply inappropriate ... it is downright dangerous.

I have naively believed that an essential element of being a progressive was open-mindedness, and tolerance.

For my simple assertions earlier in the thread, I was treated as an intellectual inferior, and possibly a flat-earther.

Yet ... at the suggestion of actually listing a depleted natural resource, PC became a virtual cricket farm.

It's not that I'm right and you're wrong, but more appropriately, we can discuss the issue with some balance, open-mindedness and tolerance for disparate notions ... and maybe each learn something from one another, and together plot a meaningful and fulfilling strategy to move forward together, towards what is without question a common goal ... no?

I'm fond of saying, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

So ... I remain unconvinced of Global Warming Theory, I have strong opinions - based on both facts, and the absence of facts - about Depleted Resources Theory,

and know full well that issues, like top soil and timber, fresh water and food, are important, require education and sound stewardship, and are largely depleted through ignorance and exploitation, but are also fundamentally a matter of substandard distribution ...

naturally other fundamentals come into play, science, technology, education, growth rate, and many more, but distribution is the lynch pin, predicated of course upon who's responsible for solving the distribution problem,

as,

there is no shortage of food and fresh water, globally, but without question, certain localities, and rather large ones at that, suffer from a tragic and unacceptable deficit ...

but, we're not out of food, and we're not out of water.

 

Nevertheless, please acknowledge, we are not out of wood.

That's exactly right.

A little balance may make for a more fulfilling conversation, but to the extent y'all want to paint me as blind and ignorant, then I'll stand firmly and immutably behind my assertion that we ain't run out of anything, we ain't gonna, and you have no evidence to the contrary.

That said, I've made my point, and I'd appreciate a little consideration moving forward, that just maybe my points of view may be valid, here and elsewhere ... and we can discuss and debate controversial issues without labeling me the enemy, and an ignorant one at that.

After all, I've read a pamphlet or two, an instruction manual once, and even the backs of a couple of cereal boxes back in the day.

.

 

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? I made that acknowledgement with my original statement. In fact, that was the whole basis of my comment: resources, while still available, become expensive when scarce.

Scarcity may be caused by rarity, overuse, or under-supply. In the case of tropical hardwoods it is all three. We aren't out of wood, but for many applications, we are out of good wood. Lesser varieties are substituted by necessity. A similar situation exists in the world's fisheries, where desirable species are over-fished. Much of what is now served were formally considered "garbage" species.

Humans adapt and press on in the face of adversity, but that doesn't mean that adversity is necessarily desirable.

Tom

 

Yes, you have made the point that you are blind, ignorant, and refuse to see (in my day we called 'em trolls) very well. Thank you.

You know why you refuse to say why the Dust Bowl happened? Because you can't unless you admit you were wrong. And admitting you were wrong is strictly forbidden in Troll School.

Since I don't usually feed Trolls, I'll read every subsequent post in this thread that doesn't answer my question as "Hi there! My name is philobeddoe and I'm wrong about everything!", and give it the reply it deserves (ie, none).

 

Pot calling the kettle black. You have to be open minded as well to be able to have a meaningful discussion. I treated you with respect when I asked what your view of the dustbowl was, if it wasn't from depleted topsoil. Maybe it was because it was piggy backing off of Stev0's comments....but instead of adressing these specific issues, you just stonewall and say but we still have "trees" (general, as there have been species that go extinct), "soil" (again general, as South American countries that deforest rain forests run out of soil pretty quickly), "water", and "air". IMO, you're proving even less of a point about how close minded people are if you start off being obstinate, without first introducing any concern for the environment or that you're willing to have a meaningful discussion (without namecalling). Unfortunately, the way you did go about it, I'm afraid a lot of people will view you as the "t" word.

 

op2:

 

Did this guy really sign up just to post in this thread? How pathetic. lol

 

Yeah F8L, Do your own research!!!!

Oh wait! That's riiiiiight. You DO do your own research. How can you, with your fancy advanced degrees and practical training even HOPE to compete with the irrefutable evidence and cunning logic of PRIUSBIGGLOBALWARMER?

I mean, look, he's DONE his research.

He KNOWS the TRUTH.

He's saving us from OURSELVES.

Freakin' amateur night tonight with those posts.

Spiderman had it best.....opcorn:

 

Don't church me up too much, Cody. I'm just a simple land manager/ecology major. A climate scientist I am not. Although I do read as many scientific journals as I can manage.

What I find amusing about these guys is that 98% of them regurgitate the same BS over and over again as if they are reading from a climate-skeptic training manual. There are no original thoughts or ideas and it is ALWAYS politically charged. Same old crap.....

 

opcorn:

 

This child is amusing in a very sad sort of way. I can't wait to hear what his next rant is going to be about.

 

I thought you were a professional womanizer. I must have confused that with your hobby.

It's the same story over and over: false "facts", old photos of nickel mining predating NiMH batteries, and copious name calling. It's would be amusing if it wasn't so predictable.

Tom