West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: jeromechickenbone on December 12, 2009, 09:30:05 AM
-
These fucks in the US media are only talking about Tiger Woods apparently. Are yall up on this?
-
he's taking an 'indefinite' break from golfing.
climate-gate? didn't hear about it in the news, can't be very important :sombrero:
-
he's taking an 'indefinite' break from golfing.
climate-gate? didn't hear about it in the news, can't be very important :sombrero:
LOL ;D
-
You do realize that the protesters are demanding that the heads of state meeting in Copenhagen commit their countries to binding treaties to cut and cap greenhouse gas emissions?
They are not protesting that global warming is false or that it isn't man-made. :)
They are actually protesting for the Copenhagen conference to be successful and demanding that the proposed caps be higher than what has officially been proposed.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/12dec09-copenhagen-protests-79121382.html
-
I was just about to add that, yeah basically these are 100,000 protestors who are the most hardcore of the lot, who as my aussie friend said, want things to be even more draconian, they are right out of the communist playback, the most hardcore of zealots, these are the type of people who would kill in the name of environmentalism lol. That really is your ironic good cop bad cop, the politicians will be be disagreeing with the protestors and making themselves look like moderates.
-
(http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii48/YGZ_2008/mr-burns-evil-laugh.png)
-
900 people arrested last night.. Danish police just arrested anybody "who looked suspicious", lol. :D
-
You do realize that the protesters are demanding that the heads of state meeting in Copenhagen commit their countries to binding treaties to cut and cap greenhouse gas emissions?
They are not protesting that global warming is false or that it isn't man-made. :)
They are actually protesting for the Copenhagen conference to be successful and demanding that the proposed caps be higher than what has officially been proposed.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/12dec09-copenhagen-protests-79121382.html
Sure, but there are many people that are protesting because the science reported was proven fraudulent.
Al Gore is shitting his pants, he gets harassed everywhere he goes since climategate came out.
-
the funniest thing about the whole climategate is the whole lack of media reporting on it, as they have been heavily complicit in selling the lies to people.
-
You do realize that the protesters are demanding that the heads of state meeting in Copenhagen commit their countries to binding treaties to cut and cap greenhouse gas emissions?
They are not protesting that global warming is false or that it isn't man-made. :)
They are actually protesting for the Copenhagen conference to be successful and demanding that the proposed caps be higher than what has officially been proposed.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/12dec09-copenhagen-protests-79121382.html
Sure, but there are many people that are protesting because the science reported was proven fraudulent.
Al Gore is shitting his pants, he gets harassed everywhere he goes since climategate came out.
Probably, although the reason you made this thread was to highlight the protests in Copenhagen and the supposed media blackout on them....
The majority of the world wants an international binding treaty on greenhouse gases, this week theres been protests all around the world in favor. The masses have spoken, maybe on what they do not entirely know or understand, but they have still spoken.
-
If climate change is a hoax, the world's nations seem to believe it. Otherwise why would nations deliberately handicap their own industry and economies?
-
900 people arrested last night.. Danish police just arrested anybody "who looked suspicious", lol. :D
Awesome. Fuck those protesters.
-
Christopher Monckton illustrates in this interview how this whole cause is being led on faith
http://www.youtube.com/v/KvufOvneJMk&feature=player_embedded
-
They can debate all they want about global warming, but there is no denying that environmental issues on the local level have fucked up local economies.
-
Wether protesters are right or wrong, it's all about the freedom of demonstration. Denmark made new security laws only for this single event. The main problem to me is that step by step rights are taken from us.
-
You do realize that the protesters are demanding that the heads of state meeting in Copenhagen commit their countries to binding treaties to cut and cap greenhouse gas emissions?
They are not protesting that global warming is false or that it isn't man-made. :)
They are actually protesting for the Copenhagen conference to be successful and demanding that the proposed caps be higher than what has officially been proposed.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/12dec09-copenhagen-protests-79121382.html
Sure, but there are many people that are protesting because the science reported was proven fraudulent.
Al Gore is shitting his pants, he gets harassed everywhere he goes since climategate came out.
Probably, although the reason you made this thread was to highlight the protests in Copenhagen and the supposed media blackout on them....
The majority of the world wants an international binding treaty on greenhouse gases, this week theres been protests all around the world in favor. The masses have spoken, maybe on what they do not entirely know or understand, but they have still spoken.
lol, how do you know what my reasoning was? I just had no idea about it and made a joke that all i was seeing was with Tiger Woods.
They have spoken so loudly that things have been postponed, lol.
-
If climate change is a hoax, the world's nations seem to believe it. Otherwise why would nations deliberately handicap their own industry and economies?
Uh, have you read how developing nations are opposing it?
Who said climate change was a hoax? What I've said on the subject is that CRU has been proven to have lied, skewed, and all out falsified information which is proven through thousands of hacked emails.
-
Supposing everyone was in full support of this global warming phenomenon which truly was the worst the world had ever seen, that all of the work of the scientists had the utmost integrity, that there were no flaws, that all of the maths added up, what you have through the UN treaty is a global goverance agreement which will monitor and regulate every facet of the economy. So when you look at what their stated long term goals are, the only possible way this comes about is by destroying the economy of the west.
-
If climate change is a hoax, the world's nations seem to believe it. Otherwise why would nations deliberately handicap their own industry and economies?
Uh, have you read how developing nations are opposing it?
Who said climate change was a hoax? What I've said on the subject is that CRU has been proven to have lied, skewed, and all out falsified information which is proven through thousands of hacked emails.
Uh, what do you mean by 'it'? They are opposing what?
The underdeveloped nations are not opposing an international treaty on emissions caps on the basis that the science is false, they are currently failing to reach an agreement because they want lower caps than the developed nations like with Kyoto, they want a continuation of Kyoto, rather than a new treaty cap system the same for all countries, because they feel developed countries owe them that.
Supposing everyone was in full support of this global warming phenomenon which truly was the worst the world had ever seen, that all of the work of the scientists had the utmost integrity, that there were no flaws, that all of the maths added up, what you have through the UN treaty is a global governance agreement which will monitor and regulate every facet of the economy. So when you look at what their stated long term goals are, the only possible way this comes about is by destroying the economy of the west.
Yeah but global governance will never be as air-tight or as straight forward as you portray, it is ever emerging but it is shakey and often than not gives way to state-centric desires. Just about all international treaties have a body established to monitor its implementation, but for example the IAEA can be duped and ignored just as we have seen with Iraq and the non-existent WMDs, it will be the same with this international treaty if it ever materializes, there will be loop-holes and state-centric desires to undermine it.
I liked the movie Quantum of Solace because, IMO, it rightly portrayed a fragmented state-centric international order of the future fighting over dwindling resources. In comparison a co-operative order of global governance based on (in the great words of Bush Snr) 'the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle' is sadly just an ideal.
The aim isn't to destroy the West's economy with emissions caps, although yes it will slow it down: the aim is to change industry not destroy it. Maybe it is for the oligarchs in your lucid nightmares but I am not those men,I am Saladin.
-
I just will say this, to deny global warming is to say the world is flat, and to think we as humans can't at least help in slowing down global warming, is to be just retarded. The End.
-
I just will say this, to deny global warming is to say the world is flat, and to think we as humans can't at least help in slowing down global warming, is to be just retarded. The End.
That's ironic, because when the world thought the world was flat, the world was a lot warmer than it is now.
-
I just will say this, to deny global warming is to say the world is flat, and to think we as humans can't at least help in slowing down global warming, is to be just retarded. The End.
dude, you get your political ideals from CNN, you're in over your head here.
Why don't you research about how EVERY other planet in our solar system is undergoing drastic changes. Yes, stupid humans are indeed hurting the environment, but aren't the sole cause behind what you are seeing.
-
i think it's fair to assume that as a race we aren't living in harmony with the planet, natural resources, etc.
but its a completely other thing to believe that the specific line peddled to us about just one issue (supposed global warming) which in turn will generate a whole load of new regulation and government income, would be anything other that fradulent. those e-mails are pretty decent evidence that a big scientific 'conspiracy' is not only feasible, it's actually been going on, much to the dismay of the establishment and conventional thinking peeps.
-
its hardly surprising though, 'conspiracy' theorists and 'fringe' elements have been saying that is definitely the case for a while now. and just anyone that could see through the flimsy story being put forth by the media.
-
Whether climate change is man-made or not was never the issue because Earth reaches a cycle about this point, the point is that the effects of climate change may be more severe this time around because of the effects that human-industry has had on the planet.
Regardless of this the damage may already be done and climate change irreversible or unstoppable anyway, as I personally believe it is. However, the real issue for me has always been ENERGY. So far I've supported the mainstream political hype because ultimately the aim is to change how we use energy and how we get it so as to remain viable on this planet, anything else is simply a selling point.
My mind too strong moving at an exceptional pace
-
I just will say this, to deny global warming is to say the world is flat, and to think we as humans can't at least help in slowing down global warming, is to be just retarded. The End.
Simplistic soundbites which don't attempt to address anything, we know there is no concensus, we know that the earth has experienced warming in the last 100 years, we know for the last 10 years it hasn't, we know the polar bears are not dying, they can show you footage of an ice cap melting all they like, it doesn't mean that the volume of ice caps overall is significantly melting, you have warm periods and you have cool periods. We know that information has been falsified, withheld, in other words we know that rampant fraud has been taking place which has led to inaccurate (diplomatically put) data. So we know the case itself is based on lies, so for you to ignore that, makes your whole response baseless.
As for the other response given about slowing down the economy, define slowing down? there was already a 5% retraction in the UK economy last year last alone, a 90% cut means rationing out electricity, rationing oil, and the cap and trade system is designed so the richest will continue to pollute, the small companies will simply fold up. I hope you are right and a fracturing does set in, BUT these developing countries know the ramifications of cutting carbon dioxide, it means reducing output, therefore reducing economic growth and with it less wealth. So the reason these countries are jostling is because it has a severe effect on wealth, so it's no different for the west either. When the middle class, particularly lower to middle middle class have just been frozen out courtesy of no real wage increases for well over a decade, they now want to reduce living standards much much further still.
Ask people in the third world if they live in a free enlightened society, and the unanimous answer will be hell no, that's why they want to become developed, prosperity for the many is intertwined with freedom.
-
I just will say this, to deny global warming is to say the world is flat, and to think we as humans can't at least help in slowing down global warming, is to be just retarded. The End.
Simplistic soundbites which don't attempt to address anything, we know there is no concensus, we know that the earth has experienced warming in the last 100 years, we know for the last 10 years it hasn't, we know the polar bears are not dying, they can show you footage of an ice cap melting all they like, it doesn't mean that the volume of ice caps overall is significantly melting, you have warm periods and you have cool periods. We know that information has been falsified, withheld, in other words we know that rampant fraud has been taking place which has led to inaccurate (diplomatically put) data. So we know the case itself is based on lies, so for you to ignore that, makes your whole response baseless.
As for the other response given about slowing down the economy, define slowing down? there was already a 5% retraction in the UK economy last year last alone, a 90% cut means rationing out electricity, rationing oil, and the cap and trade system is designed so the richest will continue to pollute, the small companies will simply fold up. I hope you are right and a fracturing does set in, BUT these developing countries know the ramifications of cutting carbon dioxide, it means reducing output, therefore reducing economic growth and with it less wealth. So the reason these countries are jostling is because it has a severe effect on wealth, so it's no different for the west either. When the middle class, particularly lower to middle middle class have just been frozen out courtesy of no real wage increases for well over a decade, they now want to reduce living standards much much further still.
Ask people in the third world if they live in a free enlightened society, and the unanimous answer will be hell no, that's why they want to become developed, prosperity for the many is intertwined with freedom.
So we should do nothing to make ourselves better and make cleaner burning energy that will allow less pollution in the air.If you don't believe in air pollution, drive in LA in traffic during the hot summer months and then try to see the mountains that are only 15 miles away. You can't. You talk all these economical terms, as if that's the only thing that drives this world, not the responsibility we have to keep it clean. For almost 2 centuries, massive industrialization in our world has changed our environment, it's change rates in asthma (cities with high air pollution have high number of asthma rates), we have increases in cancer (only 3% of deaths in 1900 were of cancer, in 2000, it's up to about 20%), we just live in an unhealthy world.
Another thing is that 1 billion people don't have drinkable water. You talk about causing nations to not be industrialized, well many nations biggest threat is the fact that their countries don't even have drinkable water. If you live in an area were there is a high Somali population, like Minneapolis, ask the ones old enough to remember Somalia if they had drinkable water. More than likely, they didn't. Many countries need to start from the bottom up in their development. Why do these countries never develop, even though they are provided with aid, after aid. You can't start building factories if your people don't even have water. These countries are developing backwards, and they trying to become the next China when they have worst water than Mexico.
Of course people in developing countries don't want a free enlightened society, they want water, food, medicine and education for their kids.
-
I just will say this, to deny global warming is to say the world is flat, and to think we as humans can't at least help in slowing down global warming, is to be just retarded. The End.
Simplistic soundbites which don't attempt to address anything, we know there is no concensus, we know that the earth has experienced warming in the last 100 years, we know for the last 10 years it hasn't, we know the polar bears are not dying, they can show you footage of an ice cap melting all they like, it doesn't mean that the volume of ice caps overall is significantly melting, you have warm periods and you have cool periods. We know that information has been falsified, withheld, in other words we know that rampant fraud has been taking place which has led to inaccurate (diplomatically put) data. So we know the case itself is based on lies, so for you to ignore that, makes your whole response baseless.
As for the other response given about slowing down the economy, define slowing down? there was already a 5% retraction in the UK economy last year last alone, a 90% cut means rationing out electricity, rationing oil, and the cap and trade system is designed so the richest will continue to pollute, the small companies will simply fold up. I hope you are right and a fracturing does set in, BUT these developing countries know the ramifications of cutting carbon dioxide, it means reducing output, therefore reducing economic growth and with it less wealth. So the reason these countries are jostling is because it has a severe effect on wealth, so it's no different for the west either. When the middle class, particularly lower to middle middle class have just been frozen out courtesy of no real wage increases for well over a decade, they now want to reduce living standards much much further still.
Ask people in the third world if they live in a free enlightened society, and the unanimous answer will be hell no, that's why they want to become developed, prosperity for the many is intertwined with freedom.
So we should do nothing to make ourselves better and make cleaner burning energy that will allow less pollution in the air.If you don't believe in air pollution, drive in LA in traffic during the hot summer months and then try to see the mountains that are only 15 miles away. You can't. You talk all these economical terms, as if that's the only thing that drives this world, not the responsibility we have to keep it clean. For almost 2 centuries, massive industrialization in our world has changed our environment, it's change rates in asthma (cities with high air pollution have high number of asthma rates), we have increases in cancer (only 3% of deaths in 1900 were of cancer, in 2000, it's up to about 20%), we just live in an unhealthy world.
Another thing is that 1 billion people don't have drinkable water. You talk about causing nations to not be industrialized, well many nations biggest threat is the fact that their countries don't even have drinkable water. If you live in an area were there is a high Somali population, like Minneapolis, ask the ones old enough to remember Somalia if they had drinkable water. More than likely, they didn't. Many countries need to start from the bottom up in their development. Why do these countries never develop, even though they are provided with aid, after aid. You can't start building factories if your people don't even have water. These countries are developing backwards, and they trying to become the next China when they have worst water than Mexico.
Of course people in developing countries don't want a free enlightened society, they want water, food, medicine and education for their kids.
Firstly my friend you mistake my words, I am not disputing with you on any of the things you have just said there, I know we pollute, I know it's had a real impact on human health. My point was they are making this whole issue about carbon dioxide and my point was the argument itself is based on lies and deceptions and the alarmist hysteria they have employed does nothing to address the issues of pollution. However meanwhile contrast the pollution in most of the west with china and india, this aimed at the west, when perversely the west has cleaned up a lot.
The most wacky and perverse story I have seen was the ministry of defence announcing it was reducing C02 emissions from it's tanks!, not banning depleted uranium you understand, but just C02 lol. The fact is the world needs C02 because it forms a layer of protection around the earth, now the other fact is, lets say that humans were causing global warming, statistics alone, tell you that the natural sources of carbon are just as responsible, so by that alone, it is a complete falsehood to say that even if every human was wiped out, that global warming would stop.
So this isn't an altruistic ideology and where the transition from pollutant to cleaner can be made quite quickly, then that's all well and good, but they just jumped onto carbon dioxide because since everything we do produces it even right now, your lights, your pc, your monitor, your tv etc etc, then they can use it to control every facet of our lives through a carbon rationing card and while squeezing and squeezing, they will push the living standards further and further down.
It is important to once again put re emphasis (broken record snydrome on the fact that they want 90% reductions on C02, i.e. all activities outside of breathing that produce carbon dioxide they have said will be no more. Now meanwhile and once again broken record syndrome lol, research what contraction and convergence is, they don't want to make life better, they want to consume even more power.
Now as for you talking about clean water, food, yes, it's called the Maslow Hierarchy Of Needs, but if they are dictated to and controlled, then the most they can ever hope for is sustenance, but that is the most basic of needs and the only way they can prosper is by not allowing themselves to be dictated to. The third world is only the third world because it has been held down.
-
The real issue is that there is a dependence on oil and gas that cannot last coupled with an ever-growing energy demand;
in order to remain viable and thrive on this here planet we must change from where and how we use energy.
Its ultimately fear-mongering from all around telling us that this will lead to the destruction of economies and depopulation and genocide, then on the other hand being told we will all suffer if we 'dont act on climate change' anyway. There will naturally be a slow in the world's economies, and famine and genocide will continue as they have always done because this is not heaven its the world. But the aim is that from this period new industry will emerge under new guidelines and with it a potential for greater energy sovereignty.
The human race is not divided into the irrational and the rational, as some idealists think. All humans are irrational, but there are two different kinds of irrationality - those who love old ideas and hate and fear new ones, and those who despise old ideas and joyfully embrace new ones. Homo neophobus and homo neophilus. Neophobus is the original human stock, the stock that hardly changed at all for the first four million years of human history. Neophilus is the creative mutation that has been popping up at regular intervals during the past million years, giving the race little forward pushes, the kind you give a wheel to make it spin faster and faster. Neophilus makes a lot of mistakes, but he or she moves. They live life the way it should be lived, ninety-nine percent mistakes and one percent viable mutations.
-Robert Anton Wilson
The Illuminatus! Trilogy: The Eye in the Pyramid, The Golden Apple, Leviathan
-
LOL @ people not beilieving in climate change in 2009. I bet some of you don't believe in evolution either :laugh:
How can the CO2 levels in a planet change so drastically over 100yrs which in the universe is little to no time?
-
LOL @ people not beilieving in climate change in 2009. I bet some of you don't believe in evolution either :laugh:
How can the CO2 levels in a planet change so drastically over 100yrs which in the universe is little to no time?
If you had bothered to actually read on these things, you would notice 5 things, firstly the graphs have been manipulated, secondly information has been withheld or deleted (which is criminal by the way) thirdly regarding what scientists actually say, they indicate that humans are responsible for a warming in the last 20 years, not the last 100! the latter is the soundbite used, fourthly in the last decade the trend has been ever so slightly downwards, or essentially it's stopped rising and finally there is no concensus, so with all of these things added into the pot, you should actually read instead of simply assuming everything is black and white.
-
I think the science is fairly solid on what CO2 does and is.
Pick up and read on it read!!! Instead of getting all your information from a screen and personalities, do your own reading and understand shit for yourself.
Plants soak up about 30% of CO2 usually but we are putting more and more CO2 and other shit into the atmosphere and the ecosystem.
So its like a full bathtub without the plug in that is draining, BUT; the taps are fully on.
CO2 helps trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and the temperature of the Earth and thus... fucks with the environment!!!
-
I think the science is fairly solid on what CO2 does and is.
Pick up and read on it read!!! Instead of getting all your information from a screen and personalities, do your own reading and understand shit for yourself.
Plants soak up about 30% of CO2 usually but we are putting more and more CO2 and other shit into the atmosphere and the ecosystem.
So its like a full bathtub without the plug in that is draining, BUT; the taps are fully on.
CO2 helps trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and the temperature of the Earth and thus... fucks with the environment!!!
Since you are implying that I don't read on it let me ask you...
What should the right temperature be?
should the earth not warm? should it in fact cool?
if so, by what temperature is appropriate for the earth? by what proportion of the earths warming is C02 responsible?
by what proportion of that is humans contribution to C02 responsible?
why is christopher monckton open challenge for scientists to debate him ignored?
why if the evidence is so compelling to the east anglian institute decide that audit climate should not get a hold of data and so asked other scientists within it's institution to delete it?
Scientists estimate that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, in light of that, is 150 years of data a definitive case?
Is this the hottest it's ever been? if not, how long did the hot period continue for before?
Why do they call it a concensus when tens of thousands of scientists disagree? http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Why is it that every other sector of science uses hypothesis to state what the trends and yet in this field, these alarmists state that x will definitely happen, what is it that makes them so infallible?
-
You are arguing the wrong argument. First off, CO2 does help cause global warming, second CO, which cars give out, is more harmful than CO2. Also, OIL IS LIMITED... let me say that again, oil is limited. If anything, we should change fuels because we are going to run out of oil someday, and we need a plan B, C and D. You are a market person, well is it any fault of the market that shows green energy and low admissions cars are selling. LED Christmas lights instead of regular, energy bulbs over regular bulbs. I say this, you want some reading on our depleting oil supply, then here you go. http://quasar.unibas.ch/~fisker/401/oil/oil.html Filled with tons of links and references please read that.
-
You are arguing the wrong argument. First off, CO2 does help cause global warming, second CO, which cars give out, is more harmful than CO2. Also, OIL IS LIMITED... let me say that again, oil is limited. If anything, we should change fuels because we are going to run out of oil someday, and we need a plan B, C and D. You are a market person, well is it any fault of the market that shows green energy and low admissions cars are selling. LED Christmas lights instead of regular, energy bulbs over regular bulbs. I say this, you want some reading on our depleting oil supply, then here you go. http://quasar.unibas.ch/~fisker/401/oil/oil.html Filled with tons of links and references please read that.
Lol do you even know what you are talking about? C0 is carbon monoxide which results in incomplete burning of fossil fuels, as opposed to C02 which produces more oxygen than it does carbon hence it gives life as opposed to starving the environment. Carbon monoxide is a problem in an enclosed space of course, because your body is then robbed of oxygen but other than that, it can freely escape. No offence but you are the person who spoke about the poison we see being emitted into the air from factories (carbon monoxide) except we don't see it, we don't taste it, we don't smell it. As for oil there are hundreds and hundreds of years of it and that's from my existing supplies, google oil found, there are thousands of links all over the world to various reserves. I agree if you can get away from the dependency without severely hurting the existing economy then great.
-
You are arguing the wrong argument. First off, CO2 does help cause global warming, second CO, which cars give out, is more harmful than CO2. Also, OIL IS LIMITED... let me say that again, oil is limited. If anything, we should change fuels because we are going to run out of oil someday, and we need a plan B, C and D. You are a market person, well is it any fault of the market that shows green energy and low admissions cars are selling. LED Christmas lights instead of regular, energy bulbs over regular bulbs. I say this, you want some reading on our depleting oil supply, then here you go. http://quasar.unibas.ch/~fisker/401/oil/oil.html Filled with tons of links and references please read that.
Lol do you even know what you are talking about? C0 is carbon monoxide which results in incomplete burning of fossil fuels, as opposed to C02 which produces more oxygen than it does carbon hence it gives life as opposed to starving the environment. Carbon monoxide is a problem in an enclosed space of course, because your body is then robbed of oxygen but other than that, it can freely escape. No offence but you are the person who spoke about the poison we see being emitted into the air from factories (carbon monoxide) except we don't see it, we don't taste it, we don't smell it. As for oil there are hundreds and hundreds of years of it and that's from my existing supplies, google oil found, there are thousands of links all over the world to various reserves. I agree if you can get away from the dependency without severely hurting the existing economy then great.
Oh dear god, you are reaching. You know, like I know what CO is all about, and you know like I know that we may have so many years of oil, but it will run out soon, and we will need to change, and 100 years is actually not that far off in the big picture. The reason we have more oil supply that previously thought is because of how much nations are cutting their oil supply. We are in a place right now that allows us to use less, therefore prolonging our existing oil supply. If nations like China and India though, with 2 billion people between them, 1/3rd the worlds population, use oil at the same rate we use oil, we will be out of oil in very short time. If they developed like the rest of the world did, there would be no more oil. We need to move away from oil if we want to ensure that economies do develop and that nations reach their full potential.
-
Actually if you read into last year's output, supply actually increased while demand fell which brought into light just how the speculators were in driving prices further and further up. I think there are many hundreds of years of oil left, but I don't disagree, if we can move away from our dependance on oil while not having our living standards driven further down then show me where this is going to come from. The immediate answer might be windfarms etc but it's a fact they don't produce enough energy, so the alternative then is nuclear power but environmentalists say no fuck that, we aren't having that, so then I am asking you, what energy sources?
-
Actually if you read into last year's output, supply actually increased while demand fell which brought into light just how the speculators were in driving prices further and further up. I think there are many hundreds of years of oil left, but I don't disagree, if we can move away from our dependance on oil while not having our living standards driven further down then show me where this is going to come from. The immediate answer might be windfarms etc but it's a fact they don't produce enough energy, so the alternative then is nuclear power but environmentalists say no fuck that, we aren't having that, so then I am asking you, what energy sources?
For now, I'm not sure, but it's something our investors need to put money on. Because who ever figures it out will be the Rockefeller of the future.
-
Exactly, you have just illustrated the nihilistic loony tendencies of at least some of these environmentalists, they want us to abandon the core energy's we use now without having any alternatives to fall back on.
-
Exactly, you have just illustrated the nihilistic loony tendencies of at least some of these environmentalists, they want us to abandon the core energy's we use now without having any alternatives to fall back on.
*Slap hand on head moment*
No one wants to just abandon what we have now, well at least those with sanity. Check it, those that want to abandon what we have are the equivalent of those "Tea Baggers" that Keith Olbermann talks about who are racist and think Obama was born in Kenya, even though his mom was a straight white American. Most environmentalist are claiming change. You know in California, home to the most extreme environmentalist, when it was proposed to build new power plants that aren't yet using green energy, to replace the older power plants, they said yes because newer power plants are cleaner and it would be an improvement to what is going on now. You take extreme environmentalist, the ones that also don't eat meat and are afraid of animal fur, and you make them out to be all liberals. How is that possible. I know conservatives who are trying to be green now. It's not a matter shifting economics, it's a matter of doing what's right.
-
Exactly, you have just illustrated the nihilistic loony tendencies of at least some of these environmentalists, they want us to abandon the core energy's we use now without having any alternatives to fall back on.
*Slap hand on head moment*
No one wants to just abandon what we have now, well at least those with sanity. Check it, those that want to abandon what we have are the equivalent of those "Tea Baggers" that Keith Olbermann talks about who are racist and think Obama was born in Kenya, even though his mom was a straight white American. Most environmentalist are claiming change. You know in California, home to the most extreme environmentalist, when it was proposed to build new power plants that aren't yet using green energy, to replace the older power plants, they said yes because newer power plants are cleaner and it would be an improvement to what is going on now. You take extreme environmentalist, the ones that also don't eat meat and are afraid of animal fur, and you make them out to be all liberals. How is that possible. I know conservatives who are trying to be green now. It's not a matter shifting economics, it's a matter of doing what's right.
I never mentioned liberals, i don't get into all of that bs, because they usually aren't what it says on the tin anyway lol. I am telling you what it's like in the UK, environmentalists cry about coal power stations, so instead they are saying okay the long term future will be many nuclear power stations and they cry about that to and as there is no magical cure, they illustrate my point.
-
Exactly, you have just illustrated the nihilistic loony tendencies of at least some of these environmentalists, they want us to abandon the core energy's we use now without having any alternatives to fall back on.
*Slap hand on head moment*
No one wants to just abandon what we have now, well at least those with sanity. Check it, those that want to abandon what we have are the equivalent of those "Tea Baggers" that Keith Olbermann talks about who are racist and think Obama was born in Kenya, even though his mom was a straight white American. Most environmentalist are claiming change. You know in California, home to the most extreme environmentalist, when it was proposed to build new power plants that aren't yet using green energy, to replace the older power plants, they said yes because newer power plants are cleaner and it would be an improvement to what is going on now. You take extreme environmentalist, the ones that also don't eat meat and are afraid of animal fur, and you make them out to be all liberals. How is that possible. I know conservatives who are trying to be green now. It's not a matter shifting economics, it's a matter of doing what's right.
I never mentioned liberals, i don't get into all of that bs, because they usually aren't what it says on the tin anyway lol. I am telling you what it's like in the UK, environmentalists cry about coal power stations, so instead they are saying okay the long term future will be many nuclear power stations and they cry about that to and as there is no magical cure, they illustrate my point.
See, but here's the thing. Because one side pushes so hard, you push back even harder. You get into this, global warming doesn't exist, we're ruining economies bs. We need to worry about a limited supply of oil that we have, we need to make progress with everyday. Your realities in the UK are not the realities in the US. In a state ran by environmentalist, they encourage building new plants that run a fossil fuels because they are cleaner than the ones that exist. You know what that is, progress and making concessions. You think because things are one way, that there's a black and a white. Well the world ain't black and white, there's a whole lot of brown in it too... :bandit:
-
Word to that. Thats exactly it too: progress and making concessions.
This is not heaven its the World.
A lot of these nations are poor and can't and won't do shit for their people anyway. At least this way they would've got some money to develop alternative forms of energy.
But what may happen is that there will not be a heavy international treaty, maybe a watered down general treaty and then countries that want will make their own binding contracts.
This is the start of a lot of international comitology on carbon emissions.
Renewable energy means energy sovereignty for nations and the people
because you can't take away the wind, the sun and the tidal...unless we really fuck ourselves and the Earth's ecosystem up.
-
The fuck you two talking about? Of course CEE-OH-FUCKING 2 helps warm the globe. CO2 absorbs some of the heat radiation from the Earth's surface and reradiates it back downward, hence warming the surface.
CO2 is naturally created and is usually absorbed by plants that remove 30%, 25% by the oceans and 45% usually remains in the atmosphere. HOWEVER, given that we, humankind, came along there has been an increase in burning of fossil fuels so right now CO2 is released by us creatures into the atmosphere nearly twice as fast as it is naturally removed. Now four-fifths of CO2 comes from fossil fuels. FOUR-FIFTHS.
C02 levels have not been this high for at least 800,000 years. Even if the Earth heats naturally as a result of the Sun we have deforested the fuck out of the planet so the natural remedies the Earth had for maintaining the usual conditions we are used to are slipping away.
So obviously shit is a cause for concern. We are taking pre-cautions trying to get this thing moving, not to mention there a heap of other reasons like oil reason to illuminate us in our decision to shift-gears to renewable energy and infrastructure.
We handling the globe right now nah mean
-
The fuck you two talking about? Of course CEE-OH-FUCKING 2 helps warm the globe. CO2 absorbs some of the heat radiation from the Earth's surface and reradiates it back downward, hence warming the surface.
Even this is not as simple as simply saying that it traps 45%, how much escapes back out of the earth again?
CO2 is naturally created and is usually absorbed by plants that remove 30%, 25% by the oceans and 45% usually remains in the atmosphere. HOWEVER, given that we, humankind, came along there has been an increase in burning of fossil fuels so right now CO2 is released by us creatures into the atmosphere nearly twice as fast as it is naturally removed. Now four-fifths of CO2 comes from fossil fuels. FOUR-FIFTHS.
Four fifths of carbon dioxide can not come from fossil fuels or 2 things would have happened, firstly scientists pushing global warming would state 2 things, firstly that humans are directly responsible for 80% of the worlds C02, which they don't and secondly why would they say we are mostly attributable in the last 20 years, why in the last 20 years? i.e. why the concentration on the last 20 years if indeed what you just stated is true
C02 levels have not been this high for at least 800,000 years. Even if the Earth heats naturally as a result of the Sun we have deforested the fuck out of the planet so the natural remedies the Earth had for maintaining the usual conditions we are used to are slipping away.
Well lets assume that's true, we know from climate studies that vineyards were being grown in Northen England during the roman reign, we also know that Italy San Remo has experienced much hotter temperatures in the last 300 years than it is now. So with those 2 facts, we can state that there can not be a correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. Since now, we are talking about lesser temperatures in those places and yet more carbon dioxide. The other problem is we know that The East Anglian institute has been lying, so how can we possibly trust that the above statement is true?
So obviously shit is a cause for concern. We are taking pre-cautions trying to get this thing moving, not to mention there a heap of other reasons like oil reason to illuminate us in our decision to shift-gears to renewable energy and infrastructure.
Regulating carbon dioxide is just going to further empower the rich corporations and the rich and fuck up everyone else and as for the money being given to the third world, how much do you think such a bureaucracy will cost to run? they will swallow up most of this, some of it will go to the despotic dictators, business as usual
We handling the globe right now nah mean
[/quote]
-
We don't know how much CO2 is too much.
But it has not been this high for 800,000 years, (as of March, 2009 carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 387 ppm by volume). Now couple that with deforestation, and think about it, so the usual absorbers of CO2 are diminished. And also you are looking at temperature from just a few places, like Italy, not the overall Earth temperature.
Yes us humans are responsible for the burning of fossil fuels, therefore people are held to be largely responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide. 9.1 billion metric tons of CO2 is produced a year-from that 5 billion metric tons is absorbed by plants that absorb 30% of that 5 billion, rocks absorb less than 1% of that 5 billion and 25% is absorbed by the ocean and 45% goes into the atmosphere and eventually into space. So there is a remaining 4.1 billion metric tons left here on the Earth and in the atmosphere with us every-year. Now consider one of the things CO2 does: it reradiates some but not all heat back down to the Earth, which is all good, but there is more of it than usual, and increasing, therefore more CO2 means the more that process will occur.
This is how I understand it.
The oldest air bubbles ever found in Antarctic ice show that CO2 has not been this high for 800,000 years, but maybe even for millions of years. The highest ice core reading of CO2 ever found was 299 parts per million around 333,000 years ago (remember in 2008 it was 385ppm). CO2 levels are estimated to reach 450 ppm before 2050.
-
I understand the deforestation perspective, but I am simply pointing out there isn't a direct correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature as those examples illustrate. Also what we must consider is that there is no comprehensive answer to any of these questions, they are basing their trend on the last 150 years, which is a very short period of time to use to then say oh this will definitely happen, or that will definitely happen. The scientific predictions are ever changing, the leading voices have been expressing a polar opposite view only 30 years ago with predictions of polar bear being found in scotland by 2000. One would tend to think that the lack of sun spot activity was driving such language, whereas more recently temperature had picked up, but is now stabilising as the trends in the last decade indicate. We may well see a growing cooling and indeed if that is on the cards right now, it would explain how they are in such a mad rush to push through a global treaty and with it cap and trade "to hide the decline" - their words not mine lol.
-
Its not just over 150 years, its over 800,000 years, they have been measuring the ice in the Antarctic dude.
Climate scientists are like archaeologists measuring back in time the carbon levels from air samples found in frozen bubbles and allover the place, carbon dating.
They know carbon levels have significantly increased over the centuries. Whether that correlates with rising temperature is not obvious but given the Co2 levels and the state of the Earth there is cause for concern for the long term affects, but the thing is you people don't think the Earth's climate will change. It dosn't mean the Earth simply gets hotter everywhere, no it means that the traditional climate over regions shifts and gets more severe.
Anyway, at the end of the day you are right to criticize the science, because basically only a few people really actually understand it, professors who teach it admit their students have trouble understanding it. I only understand it because I read an article on it. What does that tell you?
But there is reasons why its being pushed obviously, you seem to think these all involve insidious motives, but rather there is other practical perspectives to looking at it as well. Most nations will react to it differently, then that brings to questions your views on government and what you think it should be. Or even how you think human-society should be or where to you think we should go.
We holding the globe right now, nah mean
-
Its not just over 150 years, its over 800,000 years, they have been measuring the ice in the Antarctic dude.
You will find that they are illustrating what they deem as a global warming phenomenon by pointing to the last 150 years. My point is that's nonsense to base future predictions on such a relatively small trend. However even their own trends recently do show a decline.
Climate scientists are like archaeologists measuring back in time the carbon levels from air samples found in frozen bubbles and allover the place, carbon dating.
They know carbon levels have significantly increased over the centuries. Whether that correlates with rising temperature is not obvious but given the Co2 levels and the state of the Earth there is cause for concern for the long term affects, but the thing is you people don't think the Earth's climate will change. It dosn't mean the Earth simply gets hotter everywhere, no it means that the traditional climate over regions shifts and gets more severe.
I think this is the more central point, the earths climate is ever changing throughout it's history. I have noticed there is a more subtle approach going on right now, the words global warming are being increasingly replaced with climate change which I find quite ironic.
Anyway, at the end of the day you are right to criticize the science, because basically only a few people really actually understand it, professors who teach it admit their students have trouble understanding it. I only understand it because I read an article on it. What does that tell you?
The problem of course is that this not a definitive science and so interpretations can be put on the data, different indices can be used and indeed the data can simply be blatantly manipulated.
But there is reasons why its being pushed obviously, you seem to think these all involve insidious motives, but rather there is other practical perspectives to looking at it as well. Most nations will react to it differently, then that brings to questions your views on government and what you think it should be. Or even how you think human-society should be or where to you think we should go.
There is going to be no instant quick fix that's the first thing, secondly I am not worried about global temperature, but I do think we are causing a lot of harm to the planet, and with it damaging wildlife, sea life and the wider environment. I think the government should be stepping aside and letting tomorrows entrepreneurs decide where we go. There is clearly a huge appetite for greener solutions and I am all in favour of them but I not worried about carbon dioxide. I am though worried that the remaining manufacturing base and economic activity will just simply be offshored to India and China whose pollution levels are much much worse than ours. In fact at this moment, pollution control is a foreign concept to these nations.
We holding the globe right now, nah mean
[/quote]
2 questions for you, do you think the oil industry is actually against cap and trade, or is this just something you have heard said and thus you just assume it's true?
Secondly, when the media screens footage of an icecap melting, do you think ice caps only ever melt? i.e. just continuously
-
Ok your 2 questions:
1. LOL since when have I ever said 'the oil industry is against cap and trade', man please, don't try to put words in my mouth because you are playing the small shrieking man next to Jesse Ventura.
What the fuck makes you think I heard something and so simply believe, my god: stop getting all your perspective from the internet, go out and actually talk to some scientists, attend a lecture, do some reading, instead of staring teary eyed into Alex Jones grill all the time subjecting yourself to his emotional sequencing.
The oil industry is one of the biggest investors in research and money into renewable energy.
2. No, when I look at ice caps melting I think two things: they are melting as part of the normal climate cycle, they go through their seasonal cycle, however they are actually melting and not forming again at a rate to indicate they are growing, rather they are actually shrinking. There is the possibility and the SCIENCE indicates this, that the effects of naturally occurring climate change may be made more severe by the effects that human industries have had on the planet, in this case-deforestation and increase of carbon emissions, will affect the severity of climate change.
-
Well my assumption was based on the fact that most people I have spoken to about this insist that anyone who challenges any aspect of this global warming push is a stooge for the major oil giants, since they apparently don't want this. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, it was a genuine assumption on my part and one I hadn't even challenged until I recently did some more research on the topic.
Your response to the second question leads me to this
BBC Interviewer calls claim that Arctic ice would disappear by 2030 “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism”
Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.
In an interview with the BBC’s Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a “mistake” when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.
The claim stems from a July 15 Greenpeace press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” in which it is stated that global warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic by 2030.
Sackur accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” based on “exaggeration and alarmism,” pointing out that it was “preposterous” to claim that the Greenland ice sheet, a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle that has survived much warmer periods in history, would completely melt when it had stood firm for hundreds of thousands of years.
“There is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear,” said Sackur.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” Leipold was eventually forced to admit.
However, Leipold made no apologies for Greenpeace’s tactic of “emotionalizing issues” as a means of trying to get the public to accept its stance on global warming.
He also argued that economic growth in the United States and around the world should be suppressed and that overpopulation and high standards of living should be combated because of the perceived damage they were doing to the environment,
Should be combated! the world is at the very beginnings of a global depression and this individual says we should stop having a standard of living. You see when I say they want x, it's not my opinion, their own words reveal where they want this heading.
-
Haha so there is a difference on making a direct assumption on what I supposedly believe, and 'putting words in my mouth'?
C'mon man, you slipping into spin-doctor mode now.
See, you posting that article is what I mean by 'stop getting all your information from the internet', because you obviously seem to have a preference for articles that skewer reality to meet your perspective: instead of showing me an article by an author who tells me what the Greenpeace founder supposedly said, show me what the Greenpeace leader said firsthand, show me a primary source. Thats basic Knowledge God shit.
If you actually critically analyse that article you posted note how it does not directly quote the Greenpeace leader as saying over-population and economic growth is a problem. Same goes for that 'British admit Copenhagen is all about genocide' article'. My mind too strong moving at an exceptional pace.
Spin-doctors operate behind enemy lines,
the mind is most dangerous weapon alive
-
Haha so there is a difference on making a direct assumption on what I supposedly believe, and 'putting words in my mouth'?
C'mon man, you slipping into spin-doctor mode now.
See, you posting that article is what I mean by 'stop getting all your information from the internet', because you obviously seem to have a preference for articles that skewer reality to meet your perspective: instead of showing me an article by an author who tells me what the Greenpeace founder supposedly said, show me what the Greenpeace leader said firsthand, show me a primary source. Thats basic Knowledge God shit.
If it's basic knowledge then you should know the difference between the founder and leader, the person featured on here was the leader, not the founder who left green peace because he saw that it was being taken over, basic knowledge etc
If you actually critically analyse that article you posted note how it does not directly quote the Greenpeace leader as saying over-population and economic growth is a problem. Same goes for that 'British admit Copenhagen is all about genocide' article'. My mind too strong moving at an exceptional pace.
Spin-doctors operate behind enemy lines,
the mind is most dangerous weapon alive
[/quote]
Now as for what he did say, "we definitely need to change the concept of economic growth" if you critically analyse you will note the cryptic language and if you critically analyse the cryptic language you will see what he means. In fact why are we even arguing about this? they have already stated what their aims are from the contraction and convergence agreement, don't believe me, research it for yourself.
Anyways back onto the video clip, you seem to interpret me posting these comments from papers as the only confirmation whereas I have lost count of the number of times I have heard said people say these things. In fact scratch that, i haven't just heard these people say these things, i had the misfortune to read many of these things to, articles and books written by these people.
Nevertheless, here is the vid clip
http://www.youtube.com/v/xrosjGQdquw
-
LOL
so from "we definitely need to change the concept of economic growth"
you get:
'
He argued that economic growth in the United States and around the world should be
suppressed and that overpopulation and high standards of living should be combated because
of the perceived damage they were doing to the environment''?
He did not argue for that, cha'mon now son.
And you dodging my point: those articles you posted are not based on actual primary references, that is, first hand quotations but they present and interpret information as if it is.
That isn't concerned about the truth; its tabloid stretch and spin, its no different to mainstream media stretch and spin.
If you can't see that then you become a vessel of propaganda like any other.
Its amazing how you people get so worked up about getting label 'conspiracy theorist' but when 1 man who heads an organization based on public support says something like that.
Like what? You didn't know? LOL you didn't know that people out there think yeah this is bullshit the way we buy shit and just chuck shit away. Its a big problem. What needs to replace a totally individual freedom consumerist orientated world is an individual freedom consumerist orientated world but with sustainable infrastructure, consumerist products and industry. Don't forget that the Earth is also a habitat as well.
Globalization is there to be criticized. But it is not all hell & doom.
We need people to think in different perspectives. That is at the essence of the emerging global governance that originates from nation's laws, and the understanding between nations that is international law. People are always critical, but if you look at the foundations from a legal perspective it is very interesting because its like global society has gone a certain way. If you know the foundations of why a lot of these things have been done: it really isn't based on bad intentions to the critical aspect as it is presented. People on the planet simply have constant needs, constantly. Constantly needing, so there has to be order and structure to make sure that we as a species can continue on in the direction we are intended to towards freedom-understanding and observation of the Creation.
But freedom is not simply synonymous with just having as much shit as we want to consume, although that is a excellent part of it.
Although virtuoso, there is a lot of things that I know would alarm you and that somethings that were a blast to learn and at some point did alarm me too.
but understand that global governance, or one world governance, is tied up in state interest. Directly in fact. Very much intertwined because it is all based on the co-operation of any given central national government. It sounds basic, but that is mos definitely a big chunk of the truth. It is primarily based on co-operation, not coercion. Although any real Makaveli Hobbesian realist knows coercion is there to exist. 8)
-
Dude what do you think he means by that? he is saying we need to reinvent the wheel, lets not think of economic growth as an improved standard of living anymore. We need to retract economic growth therefore lowering peoples living because "we are consuming too much" we need to keep lowering peoples standard of living until we are happy that we are at a sustainable level. Meanwhile we will create a regulatory system to tightly monitor and punish those who look to flout these laws meanwhile those who have robbed us blind get to administer things from the very top, because some are more equal than others. What you seem to so fully support is communism, you can use rhetoric like individual freedom but then you talk about the need to dictate "coercion". You then seem to play down what a dangerous path this is heading down when in fact this is brought to us by the very same people who engineered 9/11, who engineered 7/7, the bali bombings.
Every day we are being attacked by some line of thinking, either the manufactured terrorism, warnings of huge famines for the earth, unsustainable developmemt or global warming. All of which have course have a "global solution" and as for speaking about a wonderful constitution, lets say this was benevolent, america had a wonderful constitution and piece by piece they have eroded it, what's going to happen when a global bureaucracy heads down the same road? then you will have total enslavement no where to run, no means of dispute, which is the antithesis to what the west is supposed to be.
-
Goddamnit man it isn't as simple as slowing economic growth. That itself is pointless, rather it is a change in the nature of the economy through laws and social values so as to gear the world towards sustainability, yes that means an initial decline in growth over some areas but that itself is not the purpose: the aim is for growth in different directions.
Stop holding onto feelings , everybody is dirty in this game.
And nations and people know that. Look at global governance: its every country. The majority of nations co-operating, it dosn't always work but it is based on national co-operation.
Everybody is a son of a bitch with blood on their hands.
-
Goddamnit man it isn't as simple as slowing economic growth. That itself is pointless, rather it is a change in the nature of the economy through laws and social values so as to gear the world towards sustainability, yes that means an initial decline in growth over some areas but that itself is not the purpose: the aim is for growth in different directions.
Stop holding onto feelings , everybody is dirty in this game.
And nations and people know that. Look at global governance: its every country. The majority of nations co-operating, it dosn't always work but it is based on national co-operation.
Everybody is a son of a bitch with blood on their hands.
Economic value is measured by the total value of all good and services, therefore we use economic growth as an indicator to measure standard of living. We will take last years total goods and services and compare it to this years for instance. Economists in this country use a fictitious target of 2.5 economic growth, now that doesn't mean the economy is growing by 2.5%, it means just to keep pace with the inflationary figures recorded by the BOE which are in themselves extremely manipulated) then we need to record economic growth at this rate. If we don't keep pace, lets say economic growth is 1%, then we have become 1.5% poorer in the space of a year. So you can imagine then the ramifications when recently it was announced that the economy had contracted by over 4%, which in real terms means a reduction in wealth of some 6.5% just in one year.
Now what this man is stating is that we need to do away with economic growth as it exists now, that individuals standards of living should no longer be important because we have to save the planet instead. So far from the statements of suppression being incorrect, or inaccurate, they are the consequences which would unfold through this man's stated aim.
-
yes that means an initial decline in growth over some areas but that itself is not the purpose: the aim is for growth in different directions.