Flat screens hurting global warming!

**Landshark** · 07-04-2008, 06:50 AM

Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warming - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

$4.00 gas sucks but I can manage, come take my flat-screen and my 2nd Amendment Rights kick in.

**jimmycy** · 07-04-2008, 08:19 AM

If you read the article closely the scientist admitsthey have no idea if any of this gas is even escaping into the atmosphere. I'm sick of these gobal warming scare tactics. I was watching a television program the other day and the reporter insinuated that the only way to stop gloabal warming was to reduce human population on the earth. Kind of scary if you ask me.

**jj-cyclones** · 07-04-2008, 08:55 AM

I'm sure GORE doesn't have 15 of them hanging in his house either!!!

**Cyclonepride** · 07-04-2008, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by jimmycy

If you read the article closely the scientist admitsthey have no idea if any of this gas is even escaping into the atmosphere. I'm sick of these gobal warming scare tactics. I was watching a television program the other day and the reporter insinuated that the only way to stop gloabal warming was to reduce human population on the earth. Kind of scary if you ask me.

If you dig deep enough into the wacko environmentalist's thoughts, that is not just an insinuation, it is their wet dream.

**Cyclonesrule91** · 07-04-2008, 10:53 AM

The whole idiot tree hugger conspiracy lost all credibility when they told me that cows farting was wrecking the Ozone. After that, anything is possible with these flakes.

**Bobber** · 07-04-2008, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclonesrule91

The whole idiot tree hugger conspiracy lost all credibility when they told me that cows farting was wrecking the Ozone. After that, anything is possible with these flakes.

**rlegg928** · 07-04-2008, 11:00 AM

This isn't some environmental scare tactic, it's bad journalism. Thanks ABC!

**matmann22** · 07-04-2008, 08:50 PM

My follow up question for ABC is whether flat screens are worse for global warming than rear projection TVs.

I have a HD Sony rear projectioni big screen and that thing warms up my living room better than a space heater does...

**ffelknirznarf** · 07-04-2008, 09:49 PM

Zero Population Growth or a reduction would be a great goal. It would solve a lot of problems that people complain about on this message board. More people means more demand for resources. Which means we pay more for gas, food, and higher taxes.

They require a license to drive a car but not to have a kid. Personally, I think people should be able to prove they can financially afford a kid before they have one. If they are already on the public dole they should not be allowed to have another one. I have no idea how you would implement the plan and I am sure some would feel they should have an exception. I guess better sex education and encourage birth control and absitence for those of you who don't believe in birth control. It is amazing the ignorance that exists on the subject.

Without stabilization or a reduction of the population the demand for money (probably fiananced by your taxes) will grow expotentially.

If you have ever taken a petri dish and put a little bacteria in it and watched the bacteria population grow over time you can probably understand expotential growth. Then when the bacteria consumes all of the resources or kills it self off with its waster product you can understand why overpopulation is a bad thing.

Anyway reduce your taxes and food costs. Support Zero Population Growth. Otherwise these problems will just get worse.

Going back to the original subject of the thread. If we had zero population growth we would not have to worry about C02 emissions as much and Global Warming. So you could give up population growth or your flat screen. I would give up the population growth.

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

If you dig deep enough into the wacko environmentalist's thoughts, that is not just an insinuation, it is their wet dream.

**Cyclonepride** · 07-04-2008, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by ffelknirznarf

Zero Population Growth or a reduction would be a great goal. It would solve a lot of problems that people complain about on this message board. More people means more demand for resources. Which means we pay more for gas, food, and higher taxes.

They require a license to drive a car but not to have a kid. Personally, I think people should be able to prove they can financially afford a kid before they have one. If they are already on the public dole they should not be allowed to have another one. I have no idea how you would implement the plan and I am sure some would feel they should have an exception. I guess better sex education and encourage birth control and absitence for those of you who don't believe in birth control. It is amazing the ignorance that exists on the subject.

Without stabilization or a reduction of the population the demand for money (probably fiananced by your taxes) will grow expotentially.

If you have ever taken a petri dish and put a little bacteria in it and watched the bacteria population grow over time you can probably understand expotential growth. Then when the bacteria consumes all of the resources or kills it self off with its waster product you can understand why overpopulation is a bad thing.

Anyway reduce your taxes and food costs. Support Zero Population Growth. Otherwise these problems will just get worse.

Going back to the original subject of the thread. If we had zero population growth we would not have to worry about C02 emissions as much and Global Warming. So you could give up population growth or your flat screen. I would give up the population growth.

Alrighty then. I guess we've identified the camp in which you reside.

That is a scary peak into the liberal mind. The basic assumption is that they must tax productive people to take care of the unproductive ones, and therefore, they must assume greater government control over both groups. In the name of the greater good of course.

**ffelknirznarf** · 07-04-2008, 11:06 PM

Keeping taxes under control was only 1 benefit I mentioned of stabilizing the population. As the population grows so will the demand for the resources you use and so will their costs. I personally would rather deal with this problem before it is on us. Altough you reallly could make a case the problem is on us when you look at oil and food costs (On a side note I bought Barilla pasta all the time for .88-1.09 earlier this year. It is now 1.51 at Hy-Vee.)

I have no problem if you don't want your taxes to support the less fortunate. What do you want to do with them? I personally don't want to live with them when they get desperate to get the resources they need to survive. Nobody seems to want to support them but I don't see to many people wanting to throw them out on the street either. Deal with the problem now or deal with in the future. I think it will be cheaper and easier now.

A lot of the baby boomers have not saved for retirment. Approximately 50% of people at the age of 50 have less than 50k in savings. What are we going to do with these people when they can't work. I am worried that our taxes will go up to support . Can't see the gov't throwing them out on the streets and I can't see Wal-Mart will not need that many greeters. Maybe we can send them all to ANWR and let them fend for themselves. I hear it is really desolate. We would have to pay for that as well.

Loosely quoting one of the quotes I have seen on your posts. Fix the problem. Don't worry about who to blame.

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

Alrighty then. I guess we've identified the camp in which you reside.

That is a scary peak into the liberal mind. The basic assumption is that they must tax productive people to take care of the unproductive ones, and therefore, they must assume greater government control over both groups. In the name of the greater good of course.

**LindenCy** · 07-04-2008, 11:18 PM

The problem with trying to control population is that everyone will not adhere to this (well, one of many problems). The less babies that are being had in the U.S. will mean more space for immigration (illegal and otherwise). The world population is not going to go down barring catastrophe or war. One of the major arguments for illegal immigration is that we need people to fill those jobs. Well if people were reproducing we would not. The population in Africa and Asia is not going to go down suddenly. India is growing at a crazy rate.

As a side note, empires fall from within, and we in the U.S. are on our way. Getting lazy and arrogant is how it happens.

**Cyclonepride** · 07-04-2008, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by ffelknirznarf

Keeping taxes under control was only 1 benefit I mentioned of stabilizing the population. As the population grows so will be the demand for the resources you use and so will their costs. I personally would rather deal with this problem before it is on us. Altough you reallly could make a case the problem is on us when you look at oil costs.

I have no problem if you don't want your taxes to support the less fortunate. What do you want to do with them? I personally don't want to live with them when they get desperate to get the resources they need to survive. Nobody seems to want to support them but I don't see to many people wanting to throw them out on the street either. Deal with the problem now or deal with in the future. I think it will be cheaper and easier now.

Loosely quoting one of the quotes I have seen on your posts. Fix the problem. Don't worry about who to blame.

My version of fixing the problem is to place individual responsibility upon them. Any time the government subsidizes something, they get more of it. We have to take care of our people who are either mentally or physically incapable of doing so themselves.

Beyond that, I believe it is the height of compassion to expect the able bodied to care for themselves. In fact, I think it is somewhat of an elitist mindset to believe that they cannot. I would rather push people towards self reliance, and believe in them, as self reliance will bring self respect, which will be passed down to their children.

**cyclonekj** · 07-04-2008, 11:30 PM

You could freeze the population at its current level and the insatiable thirst for oil and other resources would not stop growing exponentially. The rapid industrialization of the most populated parts of the world is increasing demand on its own. China does employ population control measures, and their growing demand for resources is astronomical.

**ffelknirznarf** · 07-05-2008, 12:56 AM

I won't deny that rapid industrialization is also a problem. But why compound the problem by continuing to exponentially grow the population. Industrialization is not happenning exponentially. Hopefully technology becoming more efficient will help the problem.

Imagine if China did not have population control measures.

How can our society can continue to support itself. Most of the countries with a high population are not doing well.

A factoid.

"The US has the resources to sustain less than half of its current population of 300 million. If all 6 billion people were to share the world's resources equally, Americans would have to reduce consumption by 80%."

Do you really think we can maintain this? I think things will move toward equilibrilum and that is not good for us.

Originally Posted by cyclonekj

You could freeze the population at its current level and the insatiable thirst for oil and other resources would not stop growing exponentially. The rapid industrialization of the most populated parts of the world is increasing demand on its own. China does employ population control measures, and their growing demand for resources is astronomical.