Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Ten Things You Can Do to Help Save the Earth
people.howstuffworks.com — Going green is easier than you think. There are little things you can do every day to help reduce greenhouse gases and make a less harmful impact on the environment. Taking care of the Earth is not just a responsibility -- it's a privilege. In the spirit of Earth Day, HowStuffWorks came up with 10 things you can do to help save the Earth.
starexplorer- 1137 diggs
- digg it
- TroyWragg, on 10/12/2007, -56/+0This is a great article showing that been green is easy. At The Mantria Group, L.P. we strive everyday to build high quality eco-communities, understanding that being green means it was interal to the design from the very beginning, not an aftermarket add-on used for enhanced marketing.
If you are interested in learning more about The Mantria Group, L.P., please feel free to contact me anytime at troy@mantria.com
-Troy Wragg
Chief Environmental Officer
The Mantria Group, L.P.- c5mjohn, on 10/12/2007, -36/+25The earth is fine. It has been fine for the last 6 billion years, and will be fine if/when humans die out. Whether or not you believe we are causing global warming, you can not "save the earth".
We can only save ourselves. - SlvrEagle23, on 10/12/2007, -36/+14This is a great comment showing that being gay is easy. At The Mantria Group, L.P. you strive everyday to build high quality e-penises, understanding that being gay means it was integral to the comment from the very beginning, not an after-posting add-on used for enhanced burying.
If you are interested in spamming the hell out of The Mantria Group, L.P., please feel free to contact this douche anytime at troy@mantria.com.
Best Regards,
Digg- AtlantaLaw, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0Apparently you have some issues with this person as well. Beyond being someone who lacks integrity and has fleeced and lied to my clients, he may very well the very "douche" you state him as being.
- dominasian, on 10/12/2007, -12/+311. don't try any of these (except for troywragg you should)
http://www.livescience.com/technology/10ways_destroyearth.html - DiggDawgg, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0In a Related Story:
http://lifehacker.com/software/spam/10-ways-to-stop-the-spam-invasion-228284.php - hinkbot, on 10/12/2007, -22/+141. Earth
2. Fire
3. Wind
4. Water
5. Heart
I can do it in five... - NomenNescio, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1more like 10 things you can do to not kill earth.
>_> - macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3In soviet russia the earth save you.
It is kind of ego centric to talk about saving the earth.
When the earth gets tired of us it will schluff us off like
dead and diseased skin cells. - LucasVB, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2hinkbot: no, you're wrong, because the power is YOURS!
- themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Isn't aluminum the only safe thing to recycle?
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4You'll regret spamming on the digg comments next you see your inbox.
- NeptuneZen, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4Eco-communities, that's a good one. I got a better idea, instead of me taking precious time out of my day to help stop pollution, why don't we bomb India? Clearly if the 200 gallons I waste a day on my toilet is important, imagine how much an Indian wastes his entire life. Think of all the less CO2 he will be creating. All the less trash. If I had a choice between me actively doing something to improve the planet or some Indian's life, the answer is easy, screw India.
- EvilGnomeAndy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Save the world.
- dielawn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2#11. Nothing
- k3ndal1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0F.U.C.K. T.H.A.T... The earth isn't going anywhere, not for a loooong ***** time. This is is "How to keep the earth inhabitable for human beings." You're a selfish *****.
- tzone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2man was the first guy a retard look at how his comment got dugg down and then it spread to almost everyone who replied to him, i guess ill get the same treatement lol
- AtlantaLaw, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0Please feel free to look into Atlanta Law- The only "Green" Mantria wants is your hard earned money. Instead on useless blogging, and 4 page diatribes, merely look into the criminal history of "Troy Wragg" and his father. I represent someone whom I am not at liberty to disclose, however the lack of business savvy and ethics demonstrated by these people is dizzying. All young, all mis-informed, and all looking to merely profit off of the hype surrounding "GREEN".
Read more about Mr.Wragg.
- c5mjohn, on 10/12/2007, -36/+25The earth is fine. It has been fine for the last 6 billion years, and will be fine if/when humans die out. Whether or not you believe we are causing global warming, you can not "save the earth".
- dmmoreland, on 10/12/2007, -51/+6So many small steps can have a big impact. And the beauty of it is that you can save money in the process. No big science required. No big investment required. I cover many of the similar items and dozens more in my blogs. I hope you'll visit, and get started on the road to saving the earth the easy way.
Max
www.personalfinance-guru.blogspot.com
www.energy-guru.blogspot.com- crawfishsoul, on 10/12/2007, -12/+40Environmental spammers. Wow.
- rholloway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4...and everyone of them are checking their Google AdSense accounts every five minutes.
- rhys0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Max you fool!
- pinkbiff, on 10/12/2007, -18/+25*****. You and I can't do much by ourselves.. We have to do it collectivly. That means the state has to raise the tax on gas, and force the industry to stop producing toxic waste (PVC, KFK and similar). One way to do this, like my government is fighting for is that the state makes the industry pay big fines when they pollute (so much that its barely profitable), and then we use the money to develope green technology. But as it is today, polluting is profitable. And money, sadly, makes the world go round.
(sorry for bad english...?)- Satanael, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17I agree. For there to truly be the type of impact on the environment that we're all looking for, the government will have to get off their well-cushioned asses and do something.
- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -13/+13I hate unnecessary governmental action. But this is necessary. I'll suck it up and support a government that takes responsibility for the environment.
- davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16Agreed, but we can't use it as an excuse not to do our part now.
- CatsAreGods, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Right. Send the government, with guns, after people to FORCE them to do what YOU consider to be "the right thing".
That will "Save the earth".
As my grandma used to say..."Feh". - rarson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Nothing like general phrases of doom and gloom ("toxic waste") to scare people into wasting money.
No, I don't recycle. Because sending two trash trucks to my house instead of one is NOT going to save the environment.
I like the idea of taking money from corporations and using it to fund green technology. I think the technical term for it is "stealing," or if not that then maybe just "wasting money." - Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Yeah, because taxing things always fixes problems...
grow up - TankRamp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Yes, the individual CAN make a difference. The article not only lists things that an individual can do to save the environment, it specifies exactly how much better off the world will be as a result of each action. Moreover, if enough people bother to make a change in their habits, environmentally conscious action will become a socially enforced aspect of our culture, with no government interference. Did it take government intervention to teach people not to pee on the toilet seat?
I'm not saying government intervention isn't useful at times, but to say that the individual can accomplish nothing on their own is ridiculous. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"Oh poor you!"
- rarson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Most of the stuff on that list are just good things to do to save money. Like turning off the lights, not driving your car, or switching light bulbs. I mean, duh, you have to read this article on Digg to know those things are good ideas?
However, recycling and "making your home more efficient" are things cost money, in some cases a lot, and probably won't provide much of a return on the investment. "You won't miss those extra degrees of heat when you're asleep." Unless you live in an extremely cold climate and already have your thermostat set to 68 degrees. Your body heat naturally decreases while you sleep, which is why we put sheets on our beds. Not to mention that it takes extra time and extra heat to warm the house back up.
- tacklebox, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4Step one. Prove that we make a difference to the earth on more than a local level.
- davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18You don't need 100% proof to start taking action. As it is, there's more than enough proof to justify making drastic changes to reduce carbon emissions.
- DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Those were good tips for anyone whether we make a difference or not.
- Witchboy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Given that all peer-reviewed science shows that we've already done that, your point is meaningless. Grow up and quit fighting culture wars according to invisible lines drawn for you by other people. Think for yourself instead of just getting pissed at "the other side." What are 99.9% of the world's scientists saying? Even those with nothing to gain? What are virtually all scientists saying, aside from those paid by Exxon? Think for yourself and stop letting Rush and O'Reilly and a bunch of other angry, thoughtless ideologues think for you.
- mroo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9How many studies and research needs to be done?
100% of scientests are saying the climate IS changing, NIlly all of them say there is a 90%+ chance that we, humans, are definately contributing to the changing in the planetary climate due to industrialisation and overpopulation.
Short of everyone dying from heat exhaustion and starvation, that is pretty much as close to proof as you are gonna get on a system as complex as a planetary regulation system.
Sure the planet will survive. It will just get hotter, We will die out, and some other more suitable life forms will florish. - jbham184, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4step one: cut a hole in a box
- rarson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3CO2 contributes to about 6% of the warming effect on the environment. 90% of it is caused by water vapor. I don't hear anyone trying to cut back on water vapor in the atmosphere.
The "greenhouse effect" is what makes our planet habitable. Without this natural warming effect, life on Earth would not be possible. Not to mention that the term "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer. But I know you people are too busy pushing your anti-corporation agendas to bother with things like "facts." - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@rarson
On a clear day, water vapor can comprise 60 to 70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Next in line, carbon dioxide contributes an additional 25 percent.
The natural greenhouse effect accounts for ~33° C of the planet's atmospheric temperature.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is logarithmicaly related to global temperature.
Log(2) * 0.25 * 33° = 2.5°
This is a overwhelming simplification of the process that leaves out all other factor but refutes your point. There is also the fact that water vapor is a feedback agent while CO2 is a forcing agent.
Water vapor takes on a secondary form (i.e. clouds) when the concentration is high enough and then condenses out of the air (i.e. rain). It has an atmospheric residence time of a couple weeks to ~3 months. If all the water vapor were removed from the atmosphere, it would return within that timeframe. That is what makes it a feedback agent.
CO2 takes on no secondary forms and does not condense out of the atmosphere regardless of the concentration. It has an atmospheric residence time of decades to centuries. If all the CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would drop ~20° C and there is no "quick refill" process. That is what makes it a forcing agent.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/greenhouse.html
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
(It's ironic that a denier site is used to provide a factual reference for anthropogenic global warming. - "Readers should be aware that the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic") - rarson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think junkscience.com should be called a "denier" site. Nor am I trying to deny a trend of global warming. The point is that there's WAY too much noise on the side of "CO2 is warming Earth." We don't have enough understanding of the climate to know exactly what is changing it. CO2 MAY be contributing to Earth's warming, but there are a ton of other sources of CO2 besides man-made machines and processes that we can't control that maybe we shouldn't be squandering millions of dollars to make a minuscule improvement. I mean, if we could prevent the Earth from warming 1 degree C, then sure, maybe we should, but can we even be sure that's possible at this point? With the amount of money people and corporations are spending on "green" technology, how can we be sure we're actually making a difference?
I'd say that the core of the problem is actually measuring the Earth's temperature. How do we do it? Where are we measuring? Are we taking an average, or are we looking at specific portions of the Earth by themselves to evaluate the effects? How do we know the impact that the Sun's activity has on Earth's warming? Are our thermometers even accurate enough to the point where we can detect minuscule changes? Is everyone using the exact same type of thermometer, calibrated to the same standard as everyone else?
That's the problem. Measuring the Earth's temperature is a daunting task in the least, and quite possibly an impossible task in the worst case scenario, given our current technology (I assure you that it's not as easy as sticking a thermometer outside and reading it and recording some numbers, but vikingcoder probably already knows this). I encourage more research into solving the problems of accurately measuring the Earth's temperature. I even support taking steps to reducing the effects of man-made climate change that is supported by scientific data. The problem is (in my opinion, of course, based off what I know, which certainly isn't everything in the field of climate change) that we don't currently have all the data and capability to figure out exactly what is our fault, so we should be hesitant to throw money at a problem that might not be there.
Perhaps I've swayed a bit too far to my side. I certainly don't want to discourage or insult anyone trying to do their part to help the environment. However, I wish more people would be open to critical thinking before jumping on the green bandwagon... and it certainly is a bandwagon with the amount of sensational press it's been getting lately. I want people to "be green" because it's helping, not because it's cool or expected.
- bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6Buried as lame.
- Doorfingers, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3apparently digg users hate earth 48 diggs after 15 hours and 35 minutes
- Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11They left out number 11> Kill Hippies. The fumes from their pot smoke and unwashed bodies is a major contributor to global warming. I know Eric Cartman told me so.
- Conwaysb0718, on 10/12/2007, -21/+18I have considered your suggestions and offer these responses. Enjoy
1. Tap water? ewwww
2. Man, I work 40 miles away from my home, and on the weekend I do circles around the city for fun.
3. Gross. Have you been on a bus lately? Smell like urine much?
4. I think Penn and Teller pretty much summed up that Recycling is a load of BS. I will listen to them, since its easier.
5. Compost smells, thats why they section off the dump far away from my house. Duh.
6. How dare you mock Thomas Edison and not use his groundbreaking bulb to illuminate your dwelling. For shame.
7. I like my house to be a cool 62 degrees during the day and a comfy 76 at night. Regardless of wether I am home or not.
8. I suppose next you will want me to get a wagon weel and a horse drawn carriage??
9. It takes me an hour as it is to go 15 miles since I live in a town full of rubberneckers who cant drive. "Carpe the fast lane."
10. FINE. I unplugged my toaster. Happy now?
:)- leemcd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+111. Don't pee in the ocean
- rarson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Holy *****, I thought I was the only person on Digg that has ever watched "*****!"
Seriously though, I'm looking forward to an episode on global warming.
conwaysb0718, I digged you soley on the fact that you mentioned P&T. - sjean28, on 04/08/2008, -0/+0Ahem. Get over yourself. You think you're great don't you? Just how you attempt to bat off the world's problems with your whiny responses. Watch the news lately, hun? Things are happening. And the reason things aren't getting better is because of lazy people like you who refuse to accept these helpful tips. We aren't making you do these things. We just suggest that you do. And if you prefer not to do them, at least have some manners and don't apply attitude to that crap you call a 'comment'.
- JusticeAK, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8News flash--- Green house gas is a nature part of our atmosphere. You may now start to panic.
- JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7@JusticeAK
lol These leftie dingbat Earth Day zealots will bury all of us who make fun of this submitted digg article. This is fun. Watching them get their panties in a bunch and have their collective orgy over their fear that we're DOOOOMMMED, we're all DOOMMMMEED. This is like a car wreck on the side of the road that you just can't ignore. These greenie weenies make me laugh. I know they'll dig me down too. It will be a badge of honor. Have you greenies put on your green tinfoil hat lately? Make sure that hat is made of recycled compost material lol Make Earth Day, Drive Your SUV day as well. Piss them off lol
Ah, I wuv you, you wuv me, we're one big happy family. blah blah blah blah. Kyoto protocols will stop mother nature! Tinfoil hat required! - Witchboy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Newsflash, your grammar is ass.
- JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7@JusticeAK
- marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10Put a cork in your ass to prevent farts and give more money to Al Gore so he can fly more in his private jet and drive one of his five SUV's from one of his huge houses.
Oh that's right he buys "carbon credits" from his own firm.
MANBEARPIG! - DoscoJones, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8The voters have made a difference before. There's no more lead in gasoline or paint. DDT is illegal. Tobacco is on the way out. Speak up. It makes a difference.
Or, be a whining sheep like most people and sit there do nothing.
Your choice.- marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4How did smoking lead to global warming?
By the way we hit a record low in St. Louis. I guess I need to start smoking.
- marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4How did smoking lead to global warming?
- DeskFlyer, on 10/29/2007, -7/+30"Stop buying SUVs" strangely absent from list.
- DocBoss, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4You just gotta make sure your SUVs tires have enough air. That way you can still drive a gas guzzler and still feel good about doing your part.
- Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I tell you what when Al Gore moves from his Mansion to a normal sized home and drives a smart car then I will give up my SUV. Till then I pay for the gas don't worry bout it.
- caution, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I drive an SUV and live 2 miles from my office by choice.
I think my 4 mile round trip commute uses less gas than the wanna--be activists who live 40 miles out in the suburban sprawl and buy a hybrid. - rarson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damn, it's really funny how all the non-trendy non-green comments are getting dugg the ***** down. I'm digging every anti-environment comment and digging down all the pro-environment comments based on principle alone.
I'm glad there's still a few people like you guys out there that actually think things through before jumping on a bandwagon.
I bet this comment winds up at least -10.
I'm watching auto racing on Speed channel. I love auto racing more than the environment, and not just because I'm drunk.
- Halenthal, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10Meh. The earth, I'm not worried about. It can take care of itself quite well, and has done so for the last several billion years.
Save humanity, well that might be worth looking into. Unfortunately too much of the 'environmentalist' stuff seems to really be saying "Save our lazy way of life so we don't have to find new ways to do things" and I can't really agree with that.
Personally, I think the best thing that could possibly happen to humanity would be for all the oil to simply disappear. Use it up, burn it up, create some bacteria that eats crude oil and poops toxic nuclear waste, that'd be fine. Yeah, it sounds horrible at first, BUT-we, as in humanity, would be forced to find new, better, cleaner, more efficient ways of getting power. And while there's the easy energy of oil available, unless we're absolutely forced, we're not looking for alternatives.
No digg from me. - SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -12/+21The major cause is Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Seriously, ban that nasty crap.- marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4You have to develop a taste for it.
A little Dihydrogen Monoxide over rocks with a splash of H2O is a great after dinner drink. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6I loved that Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax ;-) much like the global warming hoax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax - djfelix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The funny thing about that comment is how true it is.
95% of the "greenhouse gases" covering the earth are ... wait for it ... WATER VAPOR.
Ban the water, and you stop the greenhouse effect. Brilliant! - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@djfelix
Incorrect.
Water vapor is a feedback agent with an atmospheric residence time measured in days, while CO2 is a forcing agent with a atmospheric residence time measured in decades. If all the water vapor were removed from the atmosphere, it would return to normal levels with nary a blip of the global atmospheric temperature. Remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere and the temperature would drop ~20° C with no "quick refill" process.
- marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4You have to develop a taste for it.
- mroffroad, on 10/12/2007, -15/+15How about stop listening to the False Prophet Al Gore who's energy bill is more than 10 regular residential homes and has a private jet.
- marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10But...but he buys 'carbon offset credits'... from his own firm that he profits from. Al loves the environment as long as it makes him cash.
- nighttrain2007, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Wait a minute, you mean the environmentalists like Al Gore really don't 'care'? I think the Earth has done quite well by itself, heating and cooling over its entire history. Personally with the latest news that Mars is now going through global warming, I feel the environmentalists should be given a one way trip, fuel, food, whatever they need. I usually don't support government programs not covered under the Constitution but if it helps to get these nanny state, I know better than you blowhards off the air and out 'doing something' I'll be happy to pay a little extra tax each year to help build their launch vehicles.
What do I do to 'help the environment'? Not a damn thing. And not planning on doing anything either. Environmentalists please buy all these green bulbs. Means the older ones will go on sale and I can stock up on lighting the house for years to come at a discount price. Same goes for your 'green' cars. Price of gasoline will drop and it will save me a few bucks at the pump filling up my pick up truck.
- fant0m, on 10/12/2007, -12/+21From the words of George Carlin (Sorry it's a "little" long):
We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these ***** people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the ***** planet?
I'm getting tired of that *****. Tired of that *****. I'm tired of ***** Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a ***** about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are *****. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!
We're going away. Pack your *****, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.
You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...*****.
So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.
Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.- ericd543, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Why isn't "Stop having so many children" on the list?
Hello? There's a big elephant in the room... - digDoug075, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hope you all realize that Carlin was being satirical. The planet will still be here whether there are any humans living on it or not. If you care about humanity, you should force your government to make pollution unprofitable.
- ericd543, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Why isn't "Stop having so many children" on the list?
- usercc, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Save the Earth from what? We don't have and will never have the ability as humans to destroy the Earth. The Earth will be here billions of years from now.
We humans may not be here in a billion years but it won't be our fault. It will be some catastrophic event from within the planet or from space.
CC - Karted, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Lets see if i do any of these:
1. Pay attention to how you use water.
Seriously i think I'm the worlds worst water waster i leave the tap on for 30 minutes at a time for almost no reason.
2. Leave your car at home.
I never leave my car at home if i need to go anywhere i take it.
3. Walk or ride your bike to work, school and anywhere you can.
I do ride my bike but not to go places just for exercise and for fun.
4. Recycle.You can help reduce pollution just by putting that soda can in a different bin.
Recycling is *****!
5. Compost.
See Above
6. Change your light bulbs.
No thanks. I like my cheap ones. I get normal bulbs ridiculously cheap and they last a long enough time for me.
7. Make your home more energy efficient (and save money).
I never touch the thermostat if its hot i open a window if its cold i turn it up higher then if it gets hot again i open up more windows.
8. Maintain your car.
I never check my tire pressure
9. Drive smarter. Slow down
I usually drive a bit faster then the speed limit so no way am i slowing down.
10.Turn off lights when you're not in the room and unplug appliances when you're not using them.
This is one i really don't do i have like 3 TV's they are always on at night i leave most lights on when i sleep too.
So i guess I'm not saving the earth as long as the earth doesnt die before i die i really could give a crap what happens afterwards. - RobAnybody, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Gasoline is now augmented with corn-derived methanol (sorry about those hungry Mexicans), DDT is illegal (bummer about that malaria thing killing all those extra Africans), and tobacco is on the way out (I wonder what will happen when those bloated state budgets that rely on the tobacco settlement come due?).
Talk loud, it makes a difference (facts be damned). - tommyvercetti, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Where is the list of things to do if you don't believe that the earth is facing any kind of environmental danger?
- davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -7/+131. do some research
2. wake up
3. start doing things differently - DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Click the link at the top of the page.
- davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -7/+131. do some research
- PrometheuZ, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I'm a Libertarian, so you can all go f yourselves, lol....you've already destroyed the Earth anyways...it's too late anyways ya goofballs! And you won't be alive to witness it either, so rest your necks!
- imightbewrong, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2is being gay good for the environment ?, i sure hope so!
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Why waste your time "saving the Earth" when the US gov't is busy trying to destroy it? My bets are on the Americans, I think they're more likely to pull it off given their complete dedication to that goal since 911. Oh yeah, I'm a libertarian too (have been for thirty years).
- Just1nD, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8stop procreating...
- SpectralSounds, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7The earth has went through a whole lot of change over the billions of years its been here. You people are conceited enough to think that we wrecked the planet in a couple hundred years? That is laughable. Digg me down, I dont much care. The planet isnt going anywhere for a long time.. and the human race will live on.
- dwhitaker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Dugg up for truthfulness.
- antechinus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+311. Lose weight. If all of the fast food fed porkers went back to a normal human weight, gasoline and jet fuel usage would decrease significantly. Consider how much energy is needlessly used on a daily basis just to accelerate millions of tonnes of lard.
- dwhitaker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Why save the earth? According to the "experts" it's too late anyway. The damage is irreversible. We're screwed. The planet is screwed. If that is true then why try?
***** it. I'm going to have a beer and enjoy the warmth of the planet. Just like I did on 12/31/1999 when you same idiots were convinced that Y2K was the end of the world.
Wake up people! We CAN'T destroy the earth....we could detonate every nuclear device on the planet simultaneously and the earth would survive. We'd all be dead but the earth would make it.
Arrogant idiots.- AdebisiTheGamer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Ya, the planet will still be here.
That fact that it won't support human life is a meaningless technicality!
***** whacko hippy greenie weenies.
As far as y2k went, I am pretty sure everyone understood it was a computer bug, not a planet earth bug. You arrogant idiot.
- AdebisiTheGamer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Ya, the planet will still be here.
- trolleyfan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4They forgot Step 11: "Find some way to end entropy - or every thing else you've done will be pointless..."
- DocBoss, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4How does composting help? When I throw something away don't they just take it somewhere and compost it? Anything that can break down (apple cores, banna peels, paper bags) are going to whether or not they are stinking up my back yard or sticking up some landfill.
- AdebisiTheGamer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The main difference in composting it yourself is a bit nebulous.
Firstly, you save on the weight and cost of transporting it to a garbage dump. A small savings per house, but over an entire city it can add up.
Secondly, if you compost you do not have to spend nearly as much fertilizing your garden (if you have one) so energy is not wasted producing artificial fertilizers, transporting those artificial fertilizers across the country, and you save money by not buying so much of them.
Composting helps a little bit. It usually makes the list because it is relatively easy to implement if you own a house, not because it is a huge benefit, but it is a small benefit.
- AdebisiTheGamer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The main difference in composting it yourself is a bit nebulous.
- codyman, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Save the Earth? Maybe the Earth should save us for a change... think about it... between people dying from anything from twisters to hurricanes to drowning in the ocean... the Earth is a mass murderer that really needs to chill out
- Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Raise taxes on gas?
Too draconian.
Raising the taxes on gas impacts the poor.
There are a whole pantload of things we can do without walking on the faces of the poor.
-Build more BioDiesel refineries (Carbon neutral, a step towards energy Independence and more jobs)
-Allow fuel efficient diesel imports (Competition for the hybrids. Competition is good)
-Expand the public transportation to the point of being a practical alternative. (Something new)
-More nukes (It's green energy, and not your father's nuclear reactor)
-A massive tax break for electric vehicles (already a practical alternative for many drivers)
-Tax incentives to build Switch Grass-to-Bio Diesel refineries. (More energy yield than sugarcane)
-Offer a big prize, as they did for commercial space travel, for an affordable solar panel. - SmilinBob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3i know, you can BUY carbon footprints, i sell them.
Send me your money, and it will save the earth.
i promise.
the earth will survive because you give me money. SERIOUSLY. - teadrinker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I am confused how does recycling paper reduce CO2 emissions? The energy required to make paper is the same from trees or from recycling. If the paper decomposes or get incinerated, then the carbon came from the atmosphere anyway.
And here is a tip in general. If it costs less money, it probably costs less in energy. So by being cheap you are being green. But remember for this to work, you have to be economical in the long run (for example, CFLs are cheaper than incandescents in the long run -- however it is hard to tell who is going to pay for the mercury clean up. The long run costs of that may actually make incandescents be more green).- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The more paper is recycled, the fewer trees that have to be cut down to provide the raw material to make paper from. Another option is using alternative sources such as cotton & hemp for raw paper material.
Who is going to pay for the cleanup of all the additional mercury emitted into the atmosphere from coal-fired plants because of the additional electricity used to power the incandescant lights? - rarson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0vikingcoder, ***** you. Trees are a RENEWABLE resource. We grow them so that we can cut them down and use them.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Old-growth forests are clear-cut to provide space for the quick growing pine (aka "trash pine") that is used as raw paper material. There is slight difference between an old-growth forest and a tree farm that is continually harvested.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The more paper is recycled, the fewer trees that have to be cut down to provide the raw material to make paper from. Another option is using alternative sources such as cotton & hemp for raw paper material.
- tmach, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Despite the fact that all this panic-mongering is rediculous (in the 70's they thought we were all going to die because of global cooling, and now they've changed their minds) and the fact that there's historical proof this is all cyclical (search: "little climatic optimum") and all sorts of other things to debunk the "we're all gonna die" attitude of the alarmists...
This list has some very good ideas and things that people should be doing to make the environment a cleaner, more pleasant place. About the only one I disagree with are the compact flourescent light bulbs. These things are a BAD idea.
First, because they contain mercury. True, it isn't much. However, I would wager that most people don't know they're supposed to take them to special recycling centers and will instead just toss 'em in the trash. If enough people do that, it will create a serious environmental hazard.
Second, because they're all pretty much made in China, in factories that spit out a lot of pollution because they're powered by dirty ol' coal. In fact, China is planning to build many MORE dirty coal burning factories to produce these bulbs, because they anticipate the demand.
So ironically, using these things to save the environment will, in the long run, very likely do just the opposite.- AdebisiTheGamer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Most of you guys who call me alarmist piss me off, but you do not, here is why.
I give you credit for one thing. Most people who think global warming is just BS do not make sense to me. I have always said, even if you think its crap, shouldn't we try to keep the planet cleaner then we do anyway? Do you really think that spewing out all these poisons is never going to come back and haunt us?
At least you seem to grasp there will be some consequences to polution. I can't fault your conclusions about global warming since we obviously both want the same thing, a cleaner, better planet.
Even if you think global warming is bunk, so long as you agree that we need to stop or severally reduce polution and waste in general, why do we have to fight over the reasons to do it? - teadrinker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@Adebisi
There may be an issue with the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and not a pollutant. So it is possible to pollute less and at the same time produce more CO2. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@teadrinker
Vitamin D is a essential nutrient - i.e. it "is life". However, taking in 0.000002% (20 parts per billion) of your body mass of it daily is a toxic overdose - i.e poisonous.
An essential component can become a pollutant when its concentration is sufficiently increased.
- AdebisiTheGamer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Most of you guys who call me alarmist piss me off, but you do not, here is why.
- idevlabsdotcom, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21. Live like the Amish.
???
The earth is SAVED!! - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3"First of all, I want to start off with a uniquely different way of looking at this that I'm sure many on here haven't even thought about before. Follow me on this. Within some circles of astronomy and the field of theoretical physics there are some scientists who have posited about the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe and from that they have explored what the evolution of those civilizations would be like through different stages. They classify these different civilizations of intelligent life in the universe based upon how advanced they are and how far they are in their evolution in conjunction with what their energy output is and what their energy source is. They rank them by Type 0, I, II, III, IV and even upwards. The energy source for a Type I civilization is planetary. For a Type II, it's stellar. For a Type III, it's galactic and it goes on. What do you guess we are? Yup, we're still a lowly, primitive Type 0 civilization. Our energy source is fossil fuels, dead plants. On the cosmic scale of things, we've only recently come out of the swamps.
These scientists make projections about the rate at which these civilizations would grow using their energy consumption along with the civilizations economic growth as the measuring stick for that forecast. They do so because unlike other every day futuristic things that can happen which are unpredictable, projecting the growth based upon the energy output is a more reliable way of making predictable forecasts for the evolution of life and the energy output and the laws of thermodynamics are a common thread that all intelligent civilizations in the universe would be bound by. This is the explanation for using this measuring stick in this hypothesis. The rate of growth with each stage is also thought to be on an exponential rate of growth as opposed to a slow and steady, linear growth. We've had moments in our history where there was suddenly a "punctuated equilibrium" in which there was a sudden, huge growth spurt as with the Industrial Revolution for example. So we have moments where we take sudden great leaps forward and the more economically freer the civilization is, the better its chances at having these growth spurts and having a faster rate of exponential evolution.
Within this hypothesis, there is currently both good news and bad news for us. The good news: Type 0 civilizations typically take millions of years to finally grow up and make the leap to Type I status. We are right at the tail end of our Type 0 status and are right on the cusp of making the jump to Type I. It is estimated that we are perhaps about 200 years away from transitioning fully into a Type I, or maybe even as close as 100 or 300 to 400 yrs. However, the ballpark figure seems to be 200. We are very close and we are already showing some of the signs of the beginning of a Type I. One sign is the Internet. A Type I civilization has a planetary communication system interconnecting everything. The Internet is just that and is this web that is enveloping our entire planet and it is growing. A Type I civilization also has a planetary culture. We're getting more of that with globalization. A Type I civilization also has a universal language as over time in evolution it is humans best interest to communicate with the same language. English anyone? Those are some of the signs we are showing already. Beyond that some of the other characteristics of a Type I are that they can manipulate, modify, and control the weather. A Type I civilizations energy source is the entire planet that they have mastered without depending upon fossil fuels anymore. A Type I can prevent things like earthquakes. A Type I can mine the ocean, build cities on the oceans and build cities upwards. A Type I also has explored and colonized the entire solar system. That's what we're approaching.
Now here's the bad news: It is thought that as intelligent life evolves through its Type 0 status they typically reach this point where we're at presently, the tail end of the Type 0 status. It is considered that most intelligent life doesn't make it and becomes extinct by this point without ever making it to Type I status. They either are destroyed through a natural cataclysm or through their own self-destruction. One contributing factor that is thought to lead to the destruction of most life before it gets a chance at further evolution, is when they discover element 92. Much like growing up and maturing, we are at that point that is considered the danger point for these civilizations, the critical juncture that is going to make or break us. As life grows through this primitive stage, it is considered that most fail to adapt and learn to grow up and mature without having themselves destroyed. They fail the challenge of this test that we're being tested with right now. That's the bad news. Based upon this hypothesis, the odds are against us.
So anyway, that in a nutshell is that scientific idea I wanted to lead this post with and I know it doesn't pertain to global warming, but within that idea it leads me to a very poignant point I want to make. Notice within that explanation I was giving that one of the characteristics of a Type I is that they can control and modify the weather? Well, let's stop to think about this here for a second. Lets look at the big picture now. We're still a Type 0 and we haven't quite reached that point yet technologically where we're advanced enough to confidently fool around with modifying and controlling the weather, let alone always predict it. We're still at that primitive level. Perhaps given a little more time, if we're allowed to advance enough technologically, we could achieve great wonders where we could have the power to do such things, but we're not there yet.
So what does this tell you? On the larger scale of things, we're just so small, insignificant, and powerless. Right now mother nature rules us. Just look at hurricane Katrina. Let's say for the sake of argument, that global warming really is occurring and that it really would be a problem. Well, given what I've said here so far, do you really think there is anything within our power that we could do presently do truly control or stop global warming? Seriously, stop to give some thought to this objectively with respect to governments. Do you truly think some vain, insignificant steps by these luddites underlying this movement whether it be the Kyoto protocols or something else, would really do anything to resist this force of mother nature right now? You have to be really misled and deluded to think we could. Right now we would have as much chance at taming this wild tiger as we would with an approaching comet. This is a volatile universe we're living in and we are right now still way too primitive and helpless to do anything about such powerful forces. Maybe some day we will, but not right now.
Enacting any government edict to try to curb this force would be just so futile and vain of us and it would have a much greater effect on our economy and our technological progress than it would on mother nature. Negatively effecting our economy and true technological progress in a free market, the very thing which would be able to save us in the future, would be a very foolish thing to do. Do you truly trust the government and the U.N. to save you? Do you think they are competent enough and really know what they're talking about? Would you have trusted the government with respect to hurricane Katrina? Now extrapolate out from that. Think about that. You can change the problem and you can change the scenario, but the results will remain the same and nothing will change. It is all central planning and bureaucracy in either case that you're depending on for your very life. If global warming is to be a problem in the future, then I would rather look to human innovation and ingenuity in the free market with scientific progress and breakthroughs to help us solve that problem. Going to the government and curbing what is the natural progress of mankind, is not the answer. I don't want the government deciding what is to be our alternative energy. I want the free market to determine that. Heck, I've even heard of some guy in India who wants to build some nano-city in India in the future, all based upon nano-technology.
As for global warming, much like the author of this article, I'm not so sure that it would really be as much a problem as the environmentalists make it out to be. Frankly, I would be more concerned about an ice age. It seems to me that it would be easier for us to adapt to global warming than to an ice age.
I've never understood why you people view the ecosystem as being this fragile and *****-sapiens as somehow being this anti-thetical to it when we are biological organisms that are just as much a part of the ecosystem. I think we're being rather vain in thinking we have that much of an effect on it. This is just all a part of the natural evolution of our species and the technological progress. It would seem counter productive of mother nature to have some organism in its environment that would be naturally destructive to it, as the organism grows.
I'm personally open to conceding that global warming could be happening though I'm still skeptical of that as well, but I'm not ready to concede that man is causing it. If global warming is occurring I find it much more likely that it is all a part of the natural cyclical process this planet goes through all the time. It seems the Sun has a lot more to do with the global climate changes than anything man could do. Astronomical events such as flare ups with sunspots and slight changes in Earths tilt of its axis or its orbit cause climate changes. Heck, even the other planets in the solar system have been warming up. Over the past several centuries we have had climate changes with Little Ice Ages occurring such as at the time of the founding of the U.S. republic. It was colder back then and they shortly were coming out of that Little Ice Age. There were periods of greater warmth during the Medieval Ages and Greenland was host to such recorded changes where it had a warmer, more moderate climate. All of this has been going on long before the modern age of mankind with industrial technology. Mother nature has often spewed out much more CO2 with just volcanic eruptions than all the CO2 we have put into the environment from our technology. Just over 400 million years ago CO2 levels were also about 10 times higher than they are now, yet it was about the coldest period in Earths history? How do you reconcile that?
Just maybe all this fear mongering over CO2 isn't what it's made out to be. We could just be going through a period where we're warming up some and it wouldn't necessarily be some doomsday scenario. I think I kind of would like to see it get a little warmer. Human beings can adapt to it.
There is much that is still not fully understood about this phenomenon. Many of these scientists you hear from in the mainstream press are unwisely jumping to conclusions when there is much contradictory info. you don't hear about from other scientists and they're relying on some faulty, unreliable methods for some of their anecdotal evidence such as these computer models they use that are only as good as the formula they use. Garbage in, garbage out. The problem is it has become harder to discern and arrive at the truth because this issue has become highly politicized and many of these scientists are influenced by government handouts and have the government in their back pocket. Scientific consensus of which there really isn't here, does not necessarily make fact. Science is constantly changing what they think they know about these subjects we don't fully understand yet. This environmentalist movement that was begun by people with an agenda has infected this issue. It's always something new whether it be Paul Erlichs population crisis or "Silent Spring". The central figures behind this movement are just people who don't like the Industrial progress of man and free market capitalism. They want to erode the sovereignty of the U.S. and control everyone with an overarching world government. That is what ultimately is promoting this movement."
http://digg.com/politics/Global_Warming_Bandwagon_To_Reach_Fever_Pitch_On_7_7_7#c6096229
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Global_Warming_Is_Not_a_Threat_But_the_Environmentalist_Response_to_It_Is_2 - grayem, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8As Carlin says "The earth isn't going anywhere... We are."
- digDoug075, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Junk Science is a front end for Steve Milloy, long time tobacco, drug and oil industry lobbyist, and who has been a reliable source for these 'cuckoo science' pieces for years. Curiously enough, both pieces use some of the same sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary (coincidence?).
From JunkScience:
Differentiating SB eqn. and solving for dT/dQ, then solving for T=288 K (average surface temperature), I get dT/dQ=0.18W/m2. If I use T=255K, I get the 0.27W/m2. Also, literature I have seen gives an average surface emissivity for earth of close to 1.0 for the far IR, so a blackbody is probably a reasonable assumption, no? So for 3.7W/m2 additional forcing from C=2*C0 (calculated from IPCC formula), I get only about 0.67K for change in T,
neglecting feedback and emissivity. Most sources I have seen (other than junkscience) report about 1-1.2K. Is the difference emissivity? Or maybe how I am interpreting the definition of radiative forcing?
[Response from RealClimate.org: If the Earth was a blackbody, the surface temperature would be 255K (so therefore it can't be). Greybody is slightly better, but it still isn't correct. You really need to account for the vertical structure of temperature (the lapse rate ), and if you want your model to get a number of basic things right you need to include spectrally grey absorbers - plus the additional mixing in the troposphere (which depends on convection, and hence affects water vapour feedbacks) etc.... The basic answer is that there isn't an extremely simple model for how it works. Radiative-convective models are pretty good (but they still need a lot of assumption built in) and so we end up needing GCMs pretty quickly. The ~1 deg no-feedback case comes from radiative-convective models that are a little more sophisticated than just SB - (but 0.27*3.7 = 1 C anyway). But everything is in the feedbacks. - gavin]
- digDoug075, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Junk Science is a front end for Steve Milloy, long time tobacco, drug and oil industry lobbyist, and who has been a reliable source for these 'cuckoo science' pieces for years. Curiously enough, both pieces use some of the same sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary (coincidence?).
- naturewoman56, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Tommy, your list is summed up thusly; do exactly what you're doing now.
Might we add a few sources of our own: Find the Organic Trade Association Earth Day calendar at http://www.ota.com/news/ohmcalendar.html. Or go to http://www.organicEarthDay.org for other celebrations. Find it all at http://www.organic-nature-news.com/earth-day-celebrations.html. - Digital.Totem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1We don't have to save the earth, we have to save the environment in which we live. Worst case scenario once we much things up a bit too much for us to live here the earth will shake us off and move along. The only thing we have produced of lasting effect on the earth is nuclear waste.
- JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2ately two weeks later, on October 13, channel 10 (one of our local t.v. stations), did a short segment on their weekly t.v. news magazine show about the 1909 article and some local people actively looking for it out at the Canyon. I contacted the producer of the s
for you to realize that you may have already waited too long to properly prepare, and if you wait much longer, it will be too late to buy gold, guns, and groceries. ... The name of the game will be survival, only survival. Forget the job since it will be gone. Your Social Security or pension check? Don't count on it. Protectio
.S. government's monitoring system for cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a fatal human brain illness, could be missing tens of thousands of victims, scientists and consumer advocates have told United Press International.
similarly accurate, it would seem that our near future will be pretty bleak. It is important to not give up hope however, because Titor said we could change our timeline if we wanted to badly enough. Ask yourself, how badly would you like to not see your country turn into a police state, not fall into civil war, and above all not go through a nuclear war? If you care enough about any of these things, you might be the one that tips the timeline into taking a better course. Actually in my opinion the timeline has already been changed, although not necessarily for the better; more on that below. First it's important to clear up some misconceptions and understand what's really going on.
's perspective on it. His young self in 2007 is only 8 years old and hasn't seen it all happen yet. His adult self would know the story from his whole history and relate it to us in terms which he had to come to understood more fully later, he wasn't simply telling us about the events he remembered from today's daily news at a tender age. Do you remember from personal experience the major world events that were going on when you were 8 years old? Not very likely. So when Titor was asked when civil strife would begin, he had to have been drawing more from th
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm melting I tel you I'm melting!!!!!!!! Ahhhh!!!!!! Damn this screwed world! Is that a boogeyman under my bed? Ahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!- silverchrysalis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2i'd like to buy a consonant
or a partial word, even
clean your keyboard, dude
- silverchrysalis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2i'd like to buy a consonant
- Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Does anyone remember the fact that one of the founders of Earth Day killed a woman and left her body in a trunk in his apartment before running for France?
- brianbb98, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1wow... lot of people saying "digg me down" ????
- JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The Pollution Solution. Heads up Greenies
http://www.ruwart.com/environ.lpn.wpd.html
http://www.ruwart.com/environ2.lpn.wpd.html - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2http://www.locksley.com/conspiracy/
Shhhhh! Step away from your green tips. Who needs your stinkin' environment? Just have fun here ;-) - PaulLev, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2eventually we'll need to leave the Earth; in the meantime, gardens on the tops of skyscrapers are an option... http://www.paullevinson.net/archives/up_on_the_roof_the_power_of_bi.phtml
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+211: become a vegetarian.
- picciano, on 10/12/2007, -5/+411. Use less energy than Al Gore. (check!)
And, no, those sissy little "my-company-paid-for-my-carbon-offsets" don't count. - VVCephei, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Such typical *****!
It's all the same! I thought you would get some supercool secret method on how to do kamehameha's and *****... not "put cans in the big green basket!!!" - origclubsoda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1#1 Kill yourself
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0--hiccup--
- cuoops, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1#1. Stop southeast Asia from polluting the Earth more than everyone else combined.
- Branyers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, and then watch the US and the rest of the world economy hopelessly collapse. Maybe not such a bad thing...
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by