Author Topic: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?  (Read 1501 times)

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #45 on: December 22, 2009, 07:44:06 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, 07:46:57 PM by Illuminati Clique »
 

virtuoso

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 333
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #46 on: December 23, 2009, 04:05:22 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, 09:32:01 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, 09:38:45 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

virtuoso

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 333
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #48 on: December 23, 2009, 04:42:29 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, 04:54:50 PM by virtuoso »
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #49 on: December 23, 2009, 05:43:23 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.




 

virtuoso

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 333
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #50 on: December 23, 2009, 06:53:21 PM »

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.
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #51 on: December 25, 2009, 02:57:56 AM »
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
« Last Edit: December 25, 2009, 03:01:32 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

virtuoso

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 333
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #52 on: December 25, 2009, 04:36:01 AM »
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

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/xrosjGQdquw" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/xrosjGQdquw</a>
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #53 on: December 27, 2009, 03:26:15 AM »
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)




« Last Edit: December 27, 2009, 06:07:10 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

virtuoso

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 333
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #54 on: December 27, 2009, 06:51:41 AM »

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.



 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #55 on: December 27, 2009, 07:14:44 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2009, 07:26:44 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

virtuoso

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 333
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #56 on: December 27, 2009, 07:48:10 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2009, 08:02:59 AM by virtuoso »
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #57 on: December 27, 2009, 09:33:30 PM »
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.