wow.. never heard that before.. I take it your a loose change fan?
Um, are you serious? You're assuming that:wow.. never heard that before.. I take it your a loose change fan?
and as far as global warning I think presidential canidate sarah palin said it best "I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate because the world's weather patterns are cyclical, and over history we have seen changes there. But it kinda doesn't matter at this point in the debate what caused it. The point is it's real; we need to do something about it."
it doesnt matter what caused it as long as we get rid of it and pray it doesnt come back ...
Ah ok. Sorry, misunderstood your point. That drives me crazy when the right wing candidates caters nonstop to left BS propaganda.you misunderstood the point... the part in bold I find amusing is the fact she says it doesnt matter what caused global warming we just need to fix it... How can you fix a problem if you dont kno what causing the problem? If you have a water leak in a pipe and the floor is getting wet is it logically to just mop the floor and hope water stops getting there? Or does it make more sense to figure out why water is there and solve whatever is causing the water to get there??
I no way near understand global warming and honestly never even wondered.. so I cant debate that, I was not implying the man caused the problem just pointing out her logic
Yeah. I was the same way. I learned about global warming in elementary school and the teachers taught it like it was gospel. Just like evolution. Just like the New Deal. Just like the Civil War. Its amazing how jaded you can get about grade school when you do some independent research.no prob .. wish I knew more about the issue though.. could have been a good discussion as I was always under the belief that global warming was mostly man caused.. but it is prolly juss brainwashing from everything I hear everywhere else
To relate it to terms liberals use and understand, by creating a panic, similar to post-9/11, Government uses their new found power to strip individual liberties, property rights, and build bigger government. Government as an institution stands to gain the most from "climate change", yet they're the ones funding the vast majority of the studies.Big energy companies have a lot to gain from arguing that there is no global warming.
What exactly do 'hippies' have to gain from arguing that it does exist?
I'm assuming that by 'hippies' you mean people like The Joint Science Acadamies for the G8+5 countries?
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf
go take a elementary geology course...you'll find your answers there!Big energy companies have a lot to gain from arguing that there is no global warming.
What exactly do 'hippies' have to gain from arguing that it does exist?
I'm assuming that by 'hippies' you mean people like The Joint Science Acadamies for the G8+5 countries?
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf
Sorry. I'm not from America so I don't really understand, or sympathize with, this need to reduce all political/philosophical/sociological arguments to a battle of conservative vs liberal. I'm not either of those things. I don't see how the Iraq war relates to global warming, and I don't see how my opinion on one necessarily determines my opinion on the other.To relate it to terms liberals use and understand, by creating a panic, similar to post-9/11, Government uses their new found power to strip individual liberties, property rights, and build bigger government. Government as an institution stands to gain the most from "climate change", yet they're the ones funding the vast majority of the studies.
Here's a nice Algore quote:
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore
Let's modify that quote to show you how hypocritical many liberals are:
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (Iraq) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are (Going to war), and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
WOW powerful argument! Who needs verbal reasoning when you can just arrogantly condescend people!go take a elementary geology course...you'll find your answers there!
No, my point was that liberals in America constantly complain about how Bush lied to them as a pretext to go to war. In that quote Algore is advocating lying to the people as a pretext to deal with global warming. The same principle applies to both arguments and that is what I was trying to highlight.Sorry. I'm not from America so I don't really understand, or sympathize with, this need to reduce all political/philosophical/sociological arguments to a battle of conservative vs liberal. I'm not either of those things. I don't see how the Iraq war relates to global warming, and I don't see how my opinion on one necessarily determines my opinion on the other.
I'll list everything I can think of offhand:The first part of your post however I find very interesting. The argument of goverments using fear to bolster their power is a pretty reasonable one imho. But do you have any factual evidence/examples of it happening in relation to global warming?
The only thing I can think of off hand is increased tax on petrol (gas). But having said that most governments are also decreasing the cost of alternative energy sources, which would tend to imply a genuine desire to cut carbon emissions rather than simply an attempt to tax people more.
I can't deny that it's a reasonable argument. Maybe even one that we should here more of in the media. To sum up my personal feelings:These are just a few of the ones I thought of off the top of my head. Essentially, you can accomplish whatever you want by controlling the country's energy and resource production, which is the government whether implicitly or explicitly is seeking to do.
Agreed....IF it was true that man causes it, then global warming is a very serious issue. However, nobody can PROVE that is true. It is all speculation and wishful thinking. Its the politics and economics of faith. Would you put your economy in the hands of priests or businessmen?I can't deny that it's a reasonable argument. Maybe even one that we should here more of in the media. To sum up my personal feelings:
I live about 200 miles north of the artic circle and climate change is a big issue here. It's not too cold as the area is kept relatively warm by arctic currents (the gulf stream). Alot of climatologists beleive the current could stop if climate trends continue, which would basically make my home virtually uninhabitable. Alternatively, it could all be a hoax and we could end up with a bunch of extra taxes and a more powerful government...
Personally, the first one worries me alot more. Taxes change all the time, and the idea of a government having control of the country doesn't really scare given that, that is essentially what they are elected to do (in that respect I may well be a liberal by american standards). My home disappearing however would be permanent.
Norway (where I live) is the 3rd largest exporter of oil in the world, with a population of less than 5 million. Needless to say: Oil is a large part of the economy. But the state is still investing lots of money to cut carbon emissions. I think carbon emessions have been cut by something like 10% since 1990. Offically the government has stated that the country will be 'carbon free' by 2030.Flames on the Fire:
Non oil-dominant countries, and countries with huge vested investments into alternative energy sources (natural gas, solar, hydrogen, etc.) have quite the economic incentive to claim man-made global warming.
It may not be as certain a scientific fact as gravity, death or taxes. But when organisations like the American National Academy of Sciences are supporting it, and nobel prizes are being given out for climatology work, you have to admit it's slightly more than speculation and wishful thinking. No?Agreed....IF it was true that man causes it, then global warming is a very serious issue. However, nobody can PROVE that is true. It is all speculation and wishful thinking. Its the politics and economics of faith. Would you put your economy in the hands of priests or businessmen?
I don't build my ideas based upon reputations, but upon facts. Yasir Arafat and Algore got Nobel prizes. That doesn't exactly help the reputation of the Noble prize. Plus the American National Academy of Science is an organization funded by the US government. Obviously their findings may be swayed by focusing on findings that support future funding.It may not be as certain a scientific fact as gravity, death or taxes. But when organisations like the American National Academy of Sciences are supporting it, and nobel prizes are being given out for climatology work, you have to admit it's slightly more than speculation and wishful thinking. No?
Fair point.I don't build my ideas based upon reputations, but upon facts. Yasir Arafat and Algore got Nobel prizes. That doesn't exactly help the reputation of the Noble prize. Plus the American National Academy of Science is an organization funded by the US government. Obviously their findings may be swayed by focusing on findings that support future funding.
-----------------(Option A)
Lets say that global warming is real, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something useful, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
Lets says its real, we do nothing to stop it, end result: The world falls into utter chaos, due to mass starvation, floods, governmental collapse.
(Option B)
Fake, do nothing about it: The world continues to pollute itself, making more and more land/water uninhabitable.
Fake, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something usefull, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
How can we lose by believeing in it?
Did you say youtube? What impact do you think this would have on the environment...-----------------
Did you find that on youtube? Anyways, your logic can be used for almost anything. What if the killer bee's come and we do nothing? What if it's fake? bahhhh anyways man-made global warming is a fairy tale use by environmentalists to shut down the oil industries
I prefer facts to justify tyrannical policies, not faerie tales. Read Algore's quote above and you see where my skepticism comes from. I remember learning in school 20 years ago that New York would be underwater today. Hmmm.(Option A)
Lets say that global warming is real, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something useful, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
Lets says its real, we do nothing to stop it, end result: The world falls into utter chaos, due to mass starvation, floods, governmental collapse.
(Option B)
Fake, do nothing about it: The world continues to pollute itself, making more and more land/water uninhabitable.
Fake, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something usefull, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
We can lose in many ways:How can we lose by believeing in it?
how is this hyped up? cuz of the oil crisis? I didnt think that was govnt funded.. isnt that speculators for the oil companies predicting that one day we might run out of oil so sell high now?? Or most likely a fear of Obama and his speeches of alternative fuel so lets get all the money we can now, it has happened before they raise the prices we start talking hybrid and the prices fall back down and everyone forgets about it, but I am getting off topic I dont see how this relates to global warmingTo relate it to terms liberals use and understand, by creating a panic, similar to post-9/11, Government uses their new found power to strip individual liberties, property rights, and build bigger government. Government as an institution stands to gain the most from "climate change", yet they're the ones funding the vast majority of the studies.
So you want the government to engineer and mastermind the economy, just in case the voodoo *may* be true?I didn't read the entire thread but I dont understand why this is debated.. okay fine I get that the earth goes the climate change and it is inevitable, fine. I get that it isnt man made and infact due to natural climate changes, fine. Those are good points but not points against it.
Where are the articles that show pollution isnt adding on the the problem??? Man might not be directly causing it, but we sure aint helping delay it much.. Why not make companies more fuel efficent? why not make more hybrid cars? where is the downside? Yes climate change is coming and yes ice caps are melting and whatever else is happening as a result of this. We might not be able to stop it from coming but we can delay it instead of helping speed it up... Don't you think?
I agree with you, but, how does a scientists really know the actual climate that was over 650,000 years ago? In my opinion, I dont think the trends we see can really be observed to that extent of time. Furthermore, I think that a "fact" like that is probably based off the same tools global warming alarmists use in their studies... computer models based of speculation of current trends...oh christ here we go...
graph of CO2 in ice cores over 650,000 years of greenhouse gasses...see the trend
...another of glacial cycle
Glacial cycles (sry wouldn't embed the image)
earth has tendency of repeating itself...humans have little impact on earth as a whole but have caused localized problematic areas. nothing we can to do stop it! we need to focus on living in the future rather than trying to fix the present!
You're right. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to try and reduce it. Who knows, it might even help. If the government says it's important to reduce carbon emissions, then citizens have no choice but to trust it's somehow for the best.... I dont think it is a guess that carbon gasses are effecting our world and bodies so why not try and reduce it?
But it does hurt to reduce emissions. Government is trying to enact a cap and trade system. Who do you think is going to regulate how many emissions businesses are going to be able to emit? The Government. Energy fuels the economy, but if government puts regulations on energy, who controls the economy now? Good bye capitalism. Hello Socialism!You're right. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to try and reduce it. Who knows, it might even help. If the government says it's important to reduce carbon emissions, then citizens have no choice but to trust it's somehow for the best.
Nobody listens or cares anyway, and at this point that's probably for the best. Henceforth, I officially giving up on politics Josh.
But it does hurt to reduce emissions. Government is trying to enact a cap and trade system. Who do you think is going to regulate how many emissions businesses are going to be able to emit? The Government. Energy fuels the economy, but if government puts regulations on energy, who controls the economy now? Good bye capitalism. Hello Socialism!
It WILL cost the US to reduce emissions, that's not exactly where we need to be spending our money with trillions in IOU's! =[
and i;m not saying that its bad just cuz the govt says so, its far from that especialy cuz i dont believe nor trust the govt for jack **** especially even more since 9/11 i subscribe to the theories of loose change so I am definetely not saying to trust them that its bad cuz they say so... i am saying it is bad.... because it is badYou're right. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to try and reduce it. Who knows, it might even help. If the government says it's important to reduce carbon emissions, then citizens have no choice but to trust it's somehow for the best.
Nobody listens or cares anyway, and at this point that's probably for the best. Henceforth, I officially giving up on politics Josh.
No, its not a stretch at all. Imagine the locomotive never being invented because it caused pollutants and they couldn't afford the taxes on it. Imagine the assembly line and automobile never be made because it caused pollutants and they couldn't afford the taxes on it.undermine the foundation of society??? Why i think that is a stretch there.. okay let me try and re-explain my view on this..
No, it shows that we're in the middle of an ice age and its about ready to get a lot colder rather than hotter unless there's a hell of a lot more CO2 emissions.there is articles and graphs posted above(which I didnt read cuz im lazy ) and they show that global warming is real and is coming and we can stop it, true?
Yes, hence the dinosaur and woolly mammoths.they also show that this has been occuring forever now and isnt man made, true?
If we are in the middle of an ice age, we want as much global warming as possible so Chicago and London aren't under a sheet of ice again.okay both those facts are cool with me, I didnt kno that before, but how does that negate the fact that our pollution is contributing to this effect?? Are there studies that carbon pollution has 0 effect on our enviroment? the carbon emmisions has 0 effect on our bodies?
It isn't *bad* to reduce CO2 emissions, what is bad is government central planning a countries economy. Its been shown to not be as effective as a free market economy. Hence China's rise to prosperity in the last 20 years.why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful? the examples you say above about the diet and children are way off.. that is our govnt specalating, I dont think it is a guess that carbon gasses are effecting our world and bodies so why not try and reduce it?
Yeah, that's what I was taught my whole life as well. There's very few legitimate sources of information the average person will ever hear on non-PC viewpoints in general. This is just one example.*side not* I did learn that we werent actually causing it from this thread as I was always under the belief that this was our fault guess not
Human flatulence contains Methanol, a known green house gas. Guess you won't mind if the government institutes a "Fart Tax" on you, based on the "maybe" tenuous evidence?why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful?
You always wanna be something noble when you grow up... a doctor or a preacher, or something like that. But now I see, I should have been a lawyer or a tax collector!! :study:I just opened a diet pepsi...yep CARBONATED!!!!!
/evil...EVIL!!!!
Actually it's big oil and energy companies that have the majority of investments in alternative energy develpment, so they stand the most to gain financially should restrictions raise fossil fuel prices and pour government development money into alternatives.Big energy companies have a lot to gain from arguing that there is no global warming.
Millions in research grants, endowed chairs, trips to Brazil and other tropical locations for Earth Summit day and what not, appointed government positions, not to mention an excuse to advance every hair brained moronic leftist economic agenda they want.What exactly do 'hippies' have to gain from arguing that it does exist?
No. Because what is not publicized is the rather large and growing portion of scientists who are finally fed up with all the "the debate is over" BS and who are signing off the alarmist sheet and moving to skeptic. Nor can you look to political organizations like the NAS or the IPCC for true science. There are already IPCC reviewers coming out and saying their views were distorted or misrepresented in the released summaries and reports. Many of the 'scientists' involved in climate research, especially those involved in determing past temperatures, are less that open when it comes to their methods and raw data, actively denying to share it with anyone who might be critical. The reasons why are clear; whenever they do or someone finds out and gets the infor public, it's loaded with errors. Michael Mann's hockey stick is one example.It may not be as certain a scientific fact as gravity, death or taxes. But when organisations like the American National Academy of Sciences are supporting it, and nobel prizes are being given out for climatology work, you have to admit it's slightly more than speculation and wishful thinking. No?
Because option A leaves out the several trillion in opportunity costs that go along with believing and 'doing something!' about it. The way you phrase the option entirely begs the question. A more sustainable lifestyle? If it's not true our lifestyle is sustainable as it is. And where does that R&D money come from? Is the government going to just print it or take it directly in taxes? What does that do to the pool of loanable funds backing capital accumulation and increased productivity and wealth for the private sector? You do realize 'doing everything we can to stop it' means ditching your modern lifestyle and wearing a loin cloth and living in a cave, correct? Unless of course the greenies are becoming more friendly with nuclear power and continuing fossil fuel use, because both are necessary to fuel our economy if we are to bring solar, wind, and other alternatives into play. That doesn't just happen over night, and it doesn't happen period if we cripple our current structure of production which is exactly what nitwits like Al Gore are suggesting. Many times its not the global warming hysteria that's the problem. Assume it's true for a moment. That still leaves the plans to 'do something!' about it for review, most of which read like they were pulled directly out of the Communist manifesto, or at the very least as if they are being proposed by people who never got past high school economics class, and didn't do to good in that one to boot.(Option A)
Lets say that global warming is real, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something useful, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
Lets says its real, we do nothing to stop it, end result: The world falls into utter chaos, due to mass starvation, floods, governmental collapse.
(Option B)
Fake, do nothing about it: The world continues to pollute itself, making more and more land/water uninhabitable.
Fake, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something usefull, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
How can we lose by believeing in it?
It's not a stretch, it's reality. It's very much the way the PATRIOT Act passed here in the US. Interest groups like the cops and FBI and what not who were begging for expanded powers for years capitalized on the panic of 9/11 and got an abomination passed. Similarly radical lefties like Paul Ehrlic who have been predicting one disaster after another for the last forty years and, despite being constantly proven wrong, using those dire predictions to try and push through the same tired old socialist policies that they've always wanted in place are now using global warming, the ultimate buggaboo, to try and push their same old agenda.undermine the foundation of society??? Why i think that is a stretch there.. okay let me try and re-explain my view on this..
Bodies I don't know about. Environment yeah. If you parse through the bullshit in the IPCC reports all the dire predictions are based on positive feedback mechanisms existing and dominating the climate, with actual contribution of CO2 being relatively negligible. The problem is assuming a long term stable system like the climate is dominated by positive feedback mechanisms is, in a word, stupid, because such a system does not lend itself to stability. A system dominated by negative feedbacks does. So what they are essentially arguing is that a system dominated by positive feedback mechanisms has just barely managed to stay stable for Christ knows how many millions of years, and it's our miniscule contribution to CO2 and other GHGs which is barely noticable next to the naturally occurring amounts, that's going to finally engage those positive feedbacks to the tipping point and send our climate spiralling out of control. Or, if you would, imagine a cat sleeping in the center of a room filled with set mouse traps. What they are saying is that even though nature has trotted elephants through the place and not woken up the cat, one little human fart is going to send kitty sky high and when he comes down all hell is going to break loose.okay both those facts are cool with me, I didnt kno that before, but how does that negate the fact that our pollution is contributing to this effect?? Are there studies that carbon pollution has 0 effect on our enviroment? the carbon emmisions has 0 effect on our bodies?
Because harm can only be judged in comparrison to gain, and can only be eliminated at a cost which might not be worth it in the end.why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful?
Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. The ultimate means of production is energy. Cap and trade policies are basically government rationing of energy resources. Hence: socialism, more along the Nazi model than outright direct nationalization of the businesses. It's also doomed to fail because of the Prisoner's Dilema. The scheme only works if everyone plays by the rules, but the incentive is to inflate the number of pollution permits and this will happen until, as it has every time it's been tried, the market for permits simply collapses because they have no real value anymore.socialism??? wow that is a stretch there.. how did you get it there, im interested in ur reasoning for that?'
Rock on CDB!I will pimpsmack you hippies! :head:
"Resident Paranoid Extremist":lol:You do realize 'doing everything we can to stop it' means ditching your modern lifestyle and wearing a loin cloth and living in a cave, correct?
You should start from the beginning of this thread and read what's been said. It's clear that reacting is going to be detrimental to the economy and could even take a hold of our freedom.most of the worlds climatologists agree that we have a detrimental effect on temperature...and even if we didnt, error on the side of caution. i cant think of a single reason to NOT act, even if it isnt a true phenomenon. the only things that would come from changing how we power the world, would all be positive. the only people who would have a problem are christian nut jobs who love oil (for some wierd reason, i still cant figure out)
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
"The Great Global Warming Swindle." | General Chat | 2 | ||
Is global warming true? | General Chat | 62 | ||
Article - Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming | Politics | 22 | ||
Global Warming | General Chat | 80 | ||
Global Warming Causes Stronger Hurricanests | Politics | 70 |