Author Topic: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?  (Read 748 times)

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2009, 06:04:34 AM »
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.



 

M Dogg™

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2009, 06:00:09 PM »
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.
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2009, 06:18:41 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 06:27:05 PM by virtuoso »
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #28 on: December 16, 2009, 06:33:29 PM »



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





 

MediumL

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3002
  • Karma: 58
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2009, 04:10:51 PM »
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?
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/DjGVAwyb454" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/DjGVAwyb454</a>
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2009, 08:14:03 PM »
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.
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2009, 09:07:58 AM »
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!!!

 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2009, 09:43:44 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 10:39:52 AM by virtuoso »
 

M Dogg™

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2009, 10:39:50 AM »
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.
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2009, 11:03:07 AM »
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.
 

M Dogg™

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2009, 11:38:17 AM »
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.
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2009, 11:45:07 AM »

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?
 

M Dogg™

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #37 on: December 19, 2009, 11:52:53 AM »

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.
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #38 on: December 19, 2009, 11:59:37 AM »

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.
 

M Dogg™

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #39 on: December 19, 2009, 04:32:30 PM »

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.
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #40 on: December 19, 2009, 05:28:08 PM »

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.
 

M Dogg™

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #41 on: December 19, 2009, 06:03:47 PM »

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:
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #42 on: December 19, 2009, 07:31:17 PM »
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.


 
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 07:16:48 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #43 on: December 22, 2009, 10:06:41 AM »
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
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 10:20:12 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #44 on: December 22, 2009, 12:02:02 PM »
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]
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #45 on: December 22, 2009, 08:44:06 PM »

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.


« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 08:46:57 PM by Illuminati Clique »
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #46 on: December 23, 2009, 05:05:22 AM »

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.
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #47 on: December 23, 2009, 10:32:01 AM »
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

« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 10:38:45 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #48 on: December 23, 2009, 05:42:29 PM »
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
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 05:54:50 PM by virtuoso »
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #49 on: December 23, 2009, 06:43:23 PM »
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.