Over 400 Scientists call man made Global Warming a Hoax in '07

[AndrE16686]

I am all for finding genuine alternatives, all for stemming pollution but the people engineering this drive are criminals.

^
That is why, i said that:

I place no faith in the government, international community or the business sector to steer humanity

The Bilderbergers, Rockefellers, etc will always be here in some form. There will always be shitheads on Earth. Thats why let them play their game, its a game they been playing for decades amongst themselves, but what they think but do not comprehend is that they are people too, they live in the same realm we do, they can be touched by the hand of fate just as easily as us, lightening has just as high a chance of striking them as it does the rest of us. They play a game oblivious to the fact that there is an umpire who watches and judges every move.

You beat 'em with the positive thoughts, you don't need em
Leave him in the dirt, let the blood suckers see him

-Inspectah Deck, "Show & Prove", off Uncontrolled Substance.


Thats just my thoughts though. But word. Keep watching the beast Virtuoso.

[virtuoso]

By that I assume you have a faith in a god?

[AndrE16686]

^
not in a traditional sense, no. But in my own sense, yes.


Listen, what I mean is that, in this World, the best you can do is live your life the best you can. If there are people oppressing you or you got it hard, or they fucking up the environment, still, you can only do your best. Thats all God expects of you. God dosn't expect me to find the Bilderbergers and execute them (If they want to execute me, so be it, but i will go down as hard as I can knowing I did the the best I could). However, if I was in a position to right even just a fraction of their evil and I didn't I would be held to answer by God. 


Also, you can't explain God or your understanding of God to other people, only try to describe and prompt them to seek for themself....



Some blind men happened to come across an elephant.
Someone told them what it was and asked them to describe it as it seemed to them.
The one who touched the leg said that it was like a column.
The second one felt its ear and said it is like a winnowing fan.
Similarly, those who had touched its trunk or belly, gave different opinions.
So with God, everyone conceives Him according to his experience.

- RamaKrishna.

[white Boy]

^ i had a religion class and we used that elephant reference. i agree with you tho.

[AndrE16686]

^
its very appropriate for a religion class. Many people have said the same thing in different ways. Ramakrishna lived a life in and out of reality. 

[Trauma-san]

"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last fish has been caught, only after the last river has been poisoned, only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten"

thanks for translating.  It's still a stupid post and not really worth an answer, but here's one anyways, in English. 

There are no more trees being cut down today than a hundred years ago.  For everytree cut down in the U.S. 2 are planted, by law.  Fish are in abundance because there are laws in place to restrict that, even when Japan goes to hunt whales the U.S. and Australia bitch so much that Japan  caves on that.  The water quality in America's rivers and streams has less particulates than 10 years ago which had less particulates than 40 years ago. 

So basically, your ignorance is fucking you up. 

[Trauma-san]

you know damn well niggaz aint gone read all that shit

Niggaz may not but there's a lot of black people here who are educated that will probably read it.  "NIGGA"

[Trauma-san]

We need solar and alternative energies.  I agree with your scepticism though, Im not saying that they are the final solution or that Kyoto will do anything, but its the general move in politics and mainstream thinking that is important before any concrete solutions can take place, all I seem to be getting from the Right of the political spectrum is negativity that I am suspicious of because well founded scientific scepticism may simply be spun and used by the protectorates of the established business corporate beast. I emphasis with your scepticism but what concerns me is that although the scepticism of these scientists is valid, that is simply part of scientific thought to be sceptical and my concern is that this report will be used as a political tool against the movement in mainstream thinking towards environmental concern. People seem to have this mentality that we can just keep finding new shit to use to feed the Beast, fossil fuels fucking up the Earth? Go Nuclear! Mine the Moon! Etc. They are all bullshit solutions, we should be using what God has provided us to use on this Earth with respect, solar, wind, etc are all good because they don't fuck with the Earth's natural cycle of things. Although it is not feasible to only rely on these technologies right now we should be building towards relying on them, its a huge change because it requires a change in the human economic system, a change that will only take place if a drastic change occurs in human thinking thats why the war is political and it is an information war, hence our discussion over the scientific report. It is a war being waged through information, Global Warming is scientifically proven to be caused by us, but it may also be natural, but not ENTIRELY one or the other. It is dangerous to think that our hypothesis is utterly air-tight. The fact is both scientific camps are right, because you gotta be sceptical of your knowledge and your wisdom 24/7 or else it isn't either wisdom or knowledge. I bet you that none of those 400-scientists oppose switching our society over to green energy though, regardless if global warming is caused by human interference or not. 

I think the mistake you make is thinking that any move towards this is a good move.  Not in the way it's being done.  All they would have to do is pitch this differently, and everybody would sign on board.  However, they use fear and lies to tell people that the earth is falling apart when in reality, it's not at all. 

Look; I don't pollute if I can help it.  I drive as little as possible, I never litter, I throw away hardly nothing unless I absolutely cannot use it.  I have a friend who recycles everything and in my business I always have construction materials, junk metals, etc. that I have to get rid of, I recycle all of it.

You know why I do that?  Not because I feel I'd destroy the earth with it... it's a respect thing, and it's a financial thing.  I don't throw trash out the window of my car because I respect the earth that birthed us all more than I respect the floorboard of my car.  So I throw it in the floorboard of my car. 

I only throw away what I can't possibly use because it saves me money.  I recycle things becuase it makes my good friend money.  I don't litter because I like the way the clean earth looks. 

A good example is the lightbulbs they've invented that are flourescents instead of incadescents.  Everybody loves them because they last longer and use less energy, plus are only slightly more expensive.  Everybody in the world uses them because it makes sense on a number of levels, and so it lowers power consumption.

If Washington and Ford and Chevy would stop bullshitting with these car prices and make an electric car cost what an electric car should, then you'd get many more people buying them as well.  Of course they can't do that because they've got a racket going and the Union's need to pay everybody 35 dollars an hour. 

[AndrE16686]

We need solar and alternative energies.  I agree with your scepticism though, Im not saying that they are the final solution or that Kyoto will do anything, but its the general move in politics and mainstream thinking that is important before any concrete solutions can take place, all I seem to be getting from the Right of the political spectrum is negativity that I am suspicious of because well founded scientific scepticism may simply be spun and used by the protectorates of the established business corporate beast. I emphasis with your scepticism but what concerns me is that although the scepticism of these scientists is valid, that is simply part of scientific thought to be sceptical and my concern is that this report will be used as a political tool against the movement in mainstream thinking towards environmental concern. People seem to have this mentality that we can just keep finding new shit to use to feed the Beast, fossil fuels fucking up the Earth? Go Nuclear! Mine the Moon! Etc. They are all bullshit solutions, we should be using what God has provided us to use on this Earth with respect, solar, wind, etc are all good because they don't fuck with the Earth's natural cycle of things. Although it is not feasible to only rely on these technologies right now we should be building towards relying on them, its a huge change because it requires a change in the human economic system, a change that will only take place if a drastic change occurs in human thinking thats why the war is political and it is an information war, hence our discussion over the scientific report. It is a war being waged through information, Global Warming is scientifically proven to be caused by us, but it may also be natural, but not ENTIRELY one or the other. It is dangerous to think that our hypothesis is utterly air-tight. The fact is both scientific camps are right, because you gotta be sceptical of your knowledge and your wisdom 24/7 or else it isn't either wisdom or knowledge. I bet you that none of those 400-scientists oppose switching our society over to green energy though, regardless if global warming is caused by human interference or not. 

I think the mistake you make is thinking that any move towards this is a good move.  Not in the way it's being done.  All they would have to do is pitch this differently, and everybody would sign on board.  However, they use fear and lies to tell people that the earth is falling apart when in reality, it's not at all. 

Not really, I don't think you can sum up my whole opinion about the global warming and environmental sentiment as me thinking its all a "good move".  The thing is, I just don't think that taking a completely negative view of it all is justified or for that matter a totally positive cheerleader position, as I said before I appreciate your scepticism.

I feel what you saying about respect and throwing shit out your car window. Remember Im Australian, not an American Democrat, I don't think in a Conservative vs Democrat frame of mind or via the type of thinking or argument framework that these sides promote over the other.

Our whole political climate is similar to yours but also very different and probably not as so polarised or as drastically divided. We have had a Conservative government for 11-years, all this time Howard never did ANYTHING for the environment, for 11-years our government denied global warming and probably more significantly denied the country any type of evironmentally focused policy, its only when public pressure grew too much that the Howard government began its "Nuclear power will save us from climate change" policy. During Howard's 11 years in power, I agreed with his argument that the economy should not fall victim to environment concerns and that global warming will not kill us all, however thats where my empathy with Howard's argument ended because for too often his ulterior role was industry salesman and his arguments were basically against things the opposition was not even arguing against, by doing that you can "frame" the opposition into a neat little picture! You were talking about flourescent lightbulbs and the little household things like that, well for 11 years (and even longer) the only people promoting or taking those type of things seriously were the Greens (on the fringes on the left of the Left), the Howad governemnt simply never gave a shit only in its last few days of power. So im  saying, we have nothing to disagree about, but for the last decade and a half, the environment has not been taken seriously by my government, thats why I see it as understandable we are seeing a type of political backlash with all the climate change fanfare and enviromental concern, at least in my country, alot of it is high time and justified, however  we do most definately require scepticism, although I remain wary of that scepticism in turn, because for 11 years and longer there has been this constant denial in the name of industry. Now, we have a new leader who is making good moves so far, the atmosphere in Australia has never been and is not currently one of fear over climate change, so I fail to see your gripe about the pitch, Gore made his film and his alarmism has been taken seriously, but was never amplified to a fearful pitich, Australians simply fail to let themselves get worked up over foreign films, however, as I see it personally, it was something that needed to be done for the mainstream, so that the more serious poltical elements had an audience. I have seen fear mongering ever since 9/11, Gore's film and the rest of the climate change cheerleaders absolutely pale in comparision.


As for them whales, Japan has never caved, they have never stopped despite what both our governments have been saying. Although now we are finally getting real with it and we will have our navy shadowing them.

[Trauma-san]

^ Your next mistake was, you assume I believe Government has a role in this.  I don't.  I think it's a personal responsibility.  I live in America, the land of the free, nobody tells me what kind of lightbulbs to buy.  I'm glad you're pissed that Howard didn't make you buy nice lightbulbs, but why didn't you buy them yourself? 

[AndrE16686]

^ Your next mistake was, you assume I believe Government has a role in this.  I don't.  I think it's a personal responsibility.  I live in America, the land of the free, nobody tells me what kind of lightbulbs to buy.  I'm glad you're pissed that Howard didn't make you buy nice lightbulbs, but why didn't you buy them yourself? 

^

LOL you are being gay and prentious now.



Its up to both individuals AND the government.  In Australia, over those past 11-years it was ONLY people outside the government who were doing anything environmentally conscious, the people the only ones giving a damn, while our government purposefully ignored the issue due to commercial pressure.

I agree with the Republican notions of freedom from government interference and personal responsibility, however, government still needs to play a role, in making laws, policy and regulations in the public and national interest, if there are only people doing things without government backing, changes don't go very far, until elections at least and even then, elections are not always won on issues that entirely represent the national interest, elections may be won on issues specifically highlighted by the major lobby groups and media power-brokers, not issues more related to the actual national interest of the people and the nation.  Howard managed to stay elected over issues primarily economic and security related, the environment was an issue overlooked by him, but not the opposition who unfortunately blundered the issue over and over. In Australia, we have water-restrictions, the government tells us when we may water our gardens and how we may use water, from a Republican view, isn't that infringing on people's personal freedom? In some ways it is but, it is government power exercised in the national interest, so it is justified in the people's and the nation's best interest, same goes for the environment in my opinion, it does no good in the national interest to destroy our environment, infact it is in the national interest to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and reduce our consumption of energy and find more efficient ways to use power and reduce waste of energy, therefore it is/was a government responsibility aswell as a personal one, to use energy saving lightbulbs (which government buildings do anyway) among many many many other things.

It matters little now however, we finally have a government elected to power more conscious of the environment.