mbrsart In reply to Dinoeater345 [2016-09-25 01:03:12 +0000 UTC]

Hello! have you joined the Adventists group yet?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Dinoeater345 In reply to mbrsart [2016-10-01 14:19:55 +0000 UTC]

no not yet, I wasn't sure if that group was dead or not. although I might join soon.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mbrsart In reply to Dinoeater345 [2016-10-13 03:38:57 +0000 UTC]

It's not super active, but it's still going. I think I'm the only admin that's on there anymore. But I come back every once in a while to approve gallery submissions.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mbrsart In reply to xXxEleanorxXx [2016-03-21 17:26:13 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mbrsart In reply to Kajm [2013-11-01 05:57:24 +0000 UTC]

Why, thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mbrsart In reply to titanfish1337 [2013-06-09 17:33:40 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mbrsart In reply to scythemantis [2013-04-21 19:46:47 +0000 UTC]

First, why'd you post this on my profile? Second, why call me a "right-wing Bible thumper" unless you're trying to incite something. You're getting marked as spam, pal. Maybe it'll teach you not to do it again.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

scythemantis In reply to mbrsart [2013-04-21 19:47:54 +0000 UTC]

Spam would be an attempt to flood you with pointless posts. I am disagreeing with your rather blunt and sweeping statements, which characterize science as some sort of foolish conspiracy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mbrsart In reply to scythemantis [2013-04-21 20:49:16 +0000 UTC]

But why did you post personal attacks on my profile instead of replying to the original comment? Contrary to your sentiments, I am a firm supporter of science, but I am vehemently opposed to politicizing it and, yes, dogmatizing it. You called me a "right-wing Bible thumper", which immediately invalidates your argument. Well, unless you're the kind of person who "debates" using ad-hominem attacks rather than rational discourse.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

scythemantis In reply to mbrsart [2013-04-21 21:29:39 +0000 UTC]

I can't reply to comments on Kajm's profile because he immediately blocks anyone who disagrees with him - even politely - on his shaky science. People who deny any human connection to current climate trends (and/or deny any warming trend at all) are thinking under a very far-fetched dogma without any solid scientific support, and frankly I don't see why they bother. Policies to combat toxic emissions and waste aren't going to hurt anyone; they're just going to reduce waste and enforce better standards of technology.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mbrsart In reply to scythemantis [2013-04-21 23:11:15 +0000 UTC]

I see. I've been blocked by the almighty *poasterchild for the same reason, never mind that I agree with one in ten things they put up.

To, too are thinking dogmatically; simply because the scientific community says, "This is fact," you agree with them. But riddle me this: if science is hard, unchanging fact, then why did science deny Meteor Crater as an impact site until 1960, when Eugene Shoemaker confirmed Daniel Barringer's hypothesis? There was no scientific evidence to support an impact, and Gene Shoemaker was almost laughed out of the community. But when he came back and proved it, the scientific community changed their minds.

I'm not going to say that anthropogenic climate change is 100% fabrication and sciencism (dogmatizing empirical knowledge as indubitable knowledge). Science has proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Just look at Venus, for crying out loud. But I think the scope is being blown way out of proportion by alarmists who seek to legislate the problem away. I don't have to follow a law in order to recycle, conserve water, and so on. And I do admit that sensible emissions standards are a good idea. But I think the EPA is too big and powerful. No agency of unelected bureaucrats should have the power to seize property (Sackett vs. EPA). If I ever buy a Prius, it won't be because it's green, and it won't be because of any Government subsidy; it will be because it is the most technologically advanced car that the average consumer can even think about affording, and we need to support technological advancement.

Until alternative energy sources are much more efficient, we need to stick to what we have. If coal suddenly became illegal, there would be an energy supply crisis, especially since nuclear energy has such a horrible reputation. The planet has survived for however long (I'm not debating young-earth theory with anybody because it's a losing argument and even still I will never change my mind), and it will survive until we can get our crap together and come up with better ways to do things. Solar sucks. Wind kills birds and literally drives people crazy. Hydro and geothermal unable to be widely implemented. Nuclear is great, but environmentalists hate it. Our current system is the best we've got for the time being, and destroying it with legislation is a really, really bad idea.

(Did you know that CFLs are "greener" only unless they break? Then they release all kinds of heinous chemicals into the environment. Incandescent lightbulbs may be inefficient, but at least they don't contain mercury.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

scythemantis In reply to mbrsart [2013-04-22 11:17:25 +0000 UTC]

Most environmentalists know that nuclear power is clean; the problem is the general public believing that it's dangerous. People refuse to forget the rare nuclear meltdowns, even though coal plants kill a whole lot more people.

CFL's contain mercury, yes, but in the long run it's still less pollution than when Incandescent bulbs are a widespread standard, and the amount of mercury one such bulb contains, which you have to keep in mind only needs to be replaced once every few years, is less than a tenth that found in a mercury based thermometer. There are several other, even less necessary products that put mercury into the environment, often during the manufacturing process, which could be cut out first.

I feel confident that better technology will still keep coming at a faster and faster rate; in no time we'll know how to make even more efficient cars than hybrids, and they may not catch on in every country, but they will in some places.

There's some emerging solar-cell technology about a thousand times more effective than current solar panels, but it takes many years for something like that to become available to the public, and that's if it does at all; companies who make solar panels and solar arrays now could very well buy the patent just to NOT release it and keep selling their shoddier stuff. That's kind of what we see with a lot of things; technically it'd cost very little to give the whole country free wireless internet, for instance, but of course we still have cable companies controlling it and putting a high price on it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mbrsart In reply to scythemantis [2013-04-22 14:49:37 +0000 UTC]

You've stated your point very well. Doesn't change a thing, though, now, does it? Wanna change something? Head to the ballot box. Tell your representatives. Because I'll always be skeptical about these matters. I'd prefer to play it safe than let the Government have free rein and start micromanaging my life and the lives of others.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mbrsart In reply to PurpleWillowTrees [2013-04-14 17:33:10 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mbrsart In reply to ShegoxDrakken [2012-12-08 05:42:14 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome

👍: 0 ⏩: 0