<p>so whats the opinion on global warming?</p>
<p>Ghosts are the cause. Okay, is the question what I think should be done to prevent it, or whether or not I think it is real, like ghosts(which are most definitely real)?</p>
<p>the former hinges on the latter.</p>
<p>Good point. I think it’s real simply do to the amount of scientists who say they know what they’re talking about and that they’re right, but I feel it’s over exaggerated, it seems arrogant to assume we could destroy the Earth’s…everything(atmosphere, geosphere, biosphere, etc.), according to many environmentalists, but none the less, it should be addressed in order to restore the Earth back to its somewhat original balance prior to the widespread use of fossil fuels.</p>
<p>so what was with the ghost talk?</p>
<p>I posted that part to not make my post too long.</p>
<p>As to how it would be restored back to its somewhat original balance, I’m a proponent of independent change. If a person believes that there is a problem, they should do whatever in their influence they can, as long as they force anything on other people, such as a legislator passing a law that all citizens must recycle. It’s a great idea, but nobody should be forced to do something unless they volunteer, and if you want more people to voluntary, exercise your first amendment muscle.</p>
<p>your such a do it yourselfer. i could totally see you on survivor. lol</p>
<p>I was joking…or is there a ghost right behind!?</p>
<p>Seriously, got to go. That AP English hw I mentioned still ain’t done!
I can’t wait to sign back on tomorrow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly agree that there is far too much focus on Global Warming lately (please, give me back my National Geographic!), but I think you’re somewhat missing the point of what scientists predict. I don’t believe they think we’re capable of completely destroying the Earth with Carbon Dioxide and fossil fuels, but rather that we’re hurting it enough for it to hurt us. Environmentalism for the sake of environmentalism is rather ridiculous [in my opinion]. Instead, environmentalism as a means of protecting humanity from catastrophe is not. [Some] Scientists believe that global warming will affect the World enough to force people out of homes due to rising sea levels, cause radical weather, etc, etc. </p>
<p>However, whether Global Warming is actually occurring is difficult to say. Scientists disagree about it; How on Earth can non-scientists understand the intricacies of the objects of their study? We are completely dependent upon an outside source: Scientists from around the World. How do we distinguish the trustworthy from the radical? The point is, we’re basing our opinions upon our own inherent beliefs, which is fine in terms of policy for social issues, but in terms of science, we can’t simply think “Well, I heard Al Gore say that Global Warming is an issue, so it must be true” or “I just feel that it is part of the cyclical patterns of Earth’s temperature, because we just can’t affect the World that much.”</p>
<p>Basically what I’m trying to say is that our dependence upon a mixture of a random sampling of outside sources mixed with our inherent beliefs clouds our ability to treat the situation empirically.</p>
<p>And I didn’t proof-read that at all, so please excuse any grammatical errors…</p>
<p>^^aww man, i missed out on the genocide/human corruption debate! (i had homework and didn’t log on). Anyways, about recycling, I think that a good compromise between volunteer recycling and government-forced recycling is recycling companies paying consumers to recycle products so its actually worth it to the common person. These can then be sold back to major manufacturers at a cheaper rate. win-win, everybody’s happy.</p>
<p>about global warming: people are way overexaggerating (<—is that a word?) the condition of the planet and the supply of fossil fuels. and this is coming from a guy who put UMich as his top choice</p>
<p>St Hudson: ghosts defy the laws of physics</p>
<p>I would love to debate w/ you all at a TASP seminar in person. it would be …interesting</p>
<p>Oh, I meant to add this earlier too:</p>
<p>[Godwin’s</a> Law](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_Law]Godwin’s”>Godwin's law - Wikipedia) has been fulfilled in this thread.</p>
<p>Just needed to officially note that.</p>
<p>I’m off to bed.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, one more thing:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I COMPLETELY, whole-heartedly agree. No one should be forced into environmentalism. That’s why I LOVE the economically-friendly ideas for saving energy/gas/etc. Save $ + Help the Environment (if you want to)!</p>
<ol>
<li>Microblaster</li>
<li>Disneyguy</li>
<li>Blue_sky</li>
<li>shrubber</li>
<li>illuminar</li>
<li>alamode</li>
<li>MSQ3881</li>
<li>Earilmadith</li>
<li>JJUYA</li>
<li>max0103</li>
<li>Zach130</li>
<li>Shuffle</li>
<li>D-Yu</li>
<li>foreverfree</li>
<li>secshisuhee</li>
<li>thericwu</li>
<li>ajkcorner1</li>
<li>panicpower</li>
<li>thepapercrane</li>
<li>pramirez184</li>
<li>ateamsteven</li>
<li>32flavors</li>
<li>giantredlobster</li>
<li>spikypufferfish</li>
<li>baadassmonkey</li>
<li>wink</li>
<li>St. Hudson</li>
<li>McBio
29.inconspicuous.s.n.
30.Tommy LaMarre</li>
<li>bulldoghopeful</li>
</ol>
<p>i’m a little late to the discussion on TASP essays/topics, but i’ve been stalking for some time and i sent my app out sunday night.</p>
<p>my seminar rankings were: UMich, Cornell II, UT Austin, Cornell I.</p>
<p>i had an econ/envi sci heavy focus for practically all of my essays (except the conflict one).</p>
<p>i feel like all of you guys are ridiculously talented/well learned (read? thought out? idk how to really describe) and i’d def like to spend the summer (at TASP of course lol) with you guys.</p>
<p>D-yu, I disagree.</p>
<p>For the past century, we’ve been using natural fossil fuels to light up our homes, run our cars, and, more recently, make plastics. The desks that you use in school? Petroleum based plastic. Milk jugs? Petroleum based plastic. The computer I’m using now? Petroleum based plastic. </p>
<p>When all that runs out, where will we be? People are depending on the innovativeness of others to solve the problems, but what if nobody can think of anything? Especially the plastics part.</p>
<p>What would I do without plastic? :(</p>
<p>bulldoghopeful, I don’t know about the others, but I’m not particularly well learned or well read. I just have my own opinions on a lot of things. </p>
<p>What time did you guys send in your apps? </p>
<p>I sent in mine at 12:01. And then I found out that it was only 10:01 for TASP.
Aaaahhh… But the feeling of relief! What a great, unbeatable, heavenly feeling! I was just ecstatic that I finished. </p>
<p>But then I realized that I had forgotten to paste my conclusion to my problem essay in the application, which I had just submitted.</p>
<p>Hahaha can you guys imagine how much I panicked?</p>
<p>^^ whoa. i would’ve flipped out. wait… what time zone are you in? TASP is Eastern, so you must live farther east than they do… did you submit from like a boat in the middle of the Atlantic or something? jk :)</p>
<p>secshisuhee, i’ve just discussed the fossil fuel thing in my Economics class. with the discovery of vast oilsands (i think that’s what they’re called) fields in Canada, fossil fuels is likely to last at least another 50 years, which should be ample time to discover alternative fuels. also, a lot of electricity is from wind/solar/hydro electricity. the fossil fuel that is running out is the easy-to-find oil, which can be shipped off for refinery immediately. don’t get me wrong though, plastics rule:)</p>
<p>bulldog (hey, that’s my school mascot!) : your seminar rankings are the same as mine!
haha, that’s how i feel every time i visit this thread. me, talented? i wish</p>
<p>no, sesh has to be central, b/c i sent mine at 12:03 in texas but it said i’d sent it at 9:52 online…
i forgot to spell check… disaster!</p>
<p>hmm… i wonder if this thread will die during the wait period from now until march…</p>
<p>Shale oil may give us time, but it’s difficult to produce. It takes three barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil, which has had devastating impacts on the Athabasca River in Alberta. It’s dirty, and the land is basically ravaged to get the oil. </p>
<p>The thing about shale oil is that it doesn’t actually address the problem that the world is facing today. We’re going to run out at some point, the world is becoming increasingly oil dependent, and there are environmental stakes that are time dependent as well. Furthermore, with world oil prices on the rise, the price of basic necessities are going up as well. Anyone heard about people in Haiti having to eat mud cookies because they can’t afford rice?</p>
<p>Sorry to butt into the debate with my vast ignorance regarding global warming…</p>
<p>But we should also consider the increasing oil consumption of many developing nations (China, India, Russia, etc.) and population growth before we speculate how long our oil will last and just let things continue the way they are until it runs out. Oil prices will continue rising over the next few decades as well; how will we cope with that? And a rise in oil prices affects transportation and plastics production, which affects pretty much any major industry in the world.</p>
<p>whoa, about the time zone thing again, if sesh is central, and she submitted at 12:01, it would be 1:01 Eastern tiime (checked on my computer time zone program)</p>