|
The Climate Change Climate Change (pg. 4)
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
Oh, and i agree, we should plant trees and kill humans. The problem, however, is that brazil kills more flora in a year than we could possibly restore in a dozen years. |
Maybe we should start a movement to heavily promote Darwinism and quit trying to rescue every deathly ill S.O.B. on the planet. Oh yeah, that would not make me very popular. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Generalizing mankind extracting things from the earth and pumping something into the atmosphere in return. A bit tongue-in-cheek. |
Yeah ok, I don't really get the correlation you're making. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Maybe we should start a movement to heavily promote Darwinism and quit trying to rescue every deathly ill S.O.B. on the planet. Oh yeah, that would not make me very popular. |
Michael Jackson's death is already taking out a good number of idiots :p
In that New Yorker article it was said that if we could just spend a few billion dollars to buy and preserve large swaths of rainforest it could do more good than any carbon cutting programs might ever be able to achieve.
The problems here are not singular, everything plays a role. |
|
|
| UnWorldly |
Humanity in general is not sustainable, we are a finite and insignificant thing and any sort of long term calculation models on our impacts on the planet will show that the practices cannot continue. We take these models far enough and we all seem to beleive there is going to be this epic die-off once one of these predictions actually happens, but none of us are living any differently. I figure if this die off happens all us city dwellers on the internet aren't gonna make it, those in like, montana and utah that have all those guns and land have a much better chance at making it.
I figure to make humanity last as long as possible we need to take these extreme steps:
no more explosives
no more mechanized transportation
no nucular :P anything
no more guns
no more instant long distance communication
hell, no mass production in general
reduce land usage total to about 10% of the habitable areas, that is just a clumsy ballpark figure with no thought put into it whatsoever
pretty much back to say, ancient rome type level of population and technological development and stuff. We can remain advanced in some like medicine and architecture but the industrialization, consumption or resources and population size will just make our species destory itself faster.
And of course I say all this stuff without meaning it because I have no intention of giving up my car or my computer or getting a job that doesnt put me on my ass all day in front of a computer.
My estimate is that humanity mostly destroys itself within 1000 years. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Maybe we should start a movement to heavily promote Darwinism and quit trying to rescue every deathly ill S.O.B. on the planet. Oh yeah, that would not make me very popular. |
I agree 100%. My woman thinks i'm an insensitive prick because everytime we watch one of those tv programs showing how they saved some retarded kid I say they should just let it die. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but we (society) needlessly waste valueable resources and they (the retarded kid that was saved) are generally a drain on society and contribute nothing of value (besides a warm fuzzy feeling when watching lifetime). That's just one example. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
they (the retarded kid that was saved) are generally a drain on society and contribute nothing of value |
Are you calling Trig Palin worthless? :mad: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
Given that no scientific experiment exists that could disprove the climate change hypothesis, I do think there is still room for healthy skepticism on the science, but that residual doubt, alone, does not seem to me to be enough to justify ignoring the evidence in favor of climate change as a matter of public policy.
Yet, while there is a wealth of scientific evidence supporting the inference that CO2 emissions will affect the climate, merely showing that a phenomenon exists does not suffice to demonstrate that it ought to be resisted and, further, that a particular means of resisting it is both reasonably likely to succeed and cost-justified.
I am open to arguments on these latter points, but so far I must observe that the arguments in favor of them appear conspicuous by their absence. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Are you calling Trig Palin worthless? :mad: |
i guess i am ;) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
Read: Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman
The propaganda model they propose would illustrate the reasoning quite clearly. |
:haha: please, for the enjoyment of us all, could you please identify which financial or corporate elites are “manufacturing consent” in regards to global warming news? The problem with people that think like you is that global warming isn’t in anybody’s interests, most certainly not those who have the most to lose by environmental reform. Since these people (read: corporations) are the same ones that you believe control the upper echelons of government and all mainstream media, to what goal are they manipulating the information in regards to GW science? How do they benefit from maintaining the man-made global warming zeitgeist, when in reality that zeitgeist is telling everyone that big business needs to change their habits?
What you have said makes exactly zero sense.
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
Man-made global warming deniers akin to creationists? Theres plenty of evidence to suggest more variables than green house gas emissions as the driving force of climate change. You're obviously not looking. How many astrophysicists have to come out with data showing the correlation between solar activity and global temperature before you take them seriously? I'd say the Gore-esque alarmists are closer to creationsts. Their wild claims haven't and aren't coming to fruition, and its already been made clear that there was falsified information in "An Inconvenient Truth." Shouldn't the east coast be well on its way underwater by now?
Its apparent its more of a political issue than good science, since many (tens of thousands) scientists don't agree. |
“tens of thousands”? surely you would be able to point us to all the peer-reviewed articles that undermine accepted global warming science? For you to be so sure of yourself (considering the complexities of the science are far beyond what you are capable of understanding without intense study) there must be an equal amount of literature that supports your view? We’d all love to read it. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
:haha: please, for the enjoyment of us all, could you please identify which financial or corporate elites are “manufacturing consent” in regards to global warming news? The problem with people that think like you is that global warming isn’t in anybody’s interests, most certainly not those who have the most to lose by environmental reform. Since these people (read: corporations) are the same ones that you believe control the upper echelons of government and all mainstream media, to what goal are they manipulating the information in regards to GW science? How do they benefit from maintaining the man-made global warming zeitgeist, when in reality that zeitgeist is telling everyone that big business needs to change their habits?
What you have said makes exactly zero sense. |
You must be joking. The whole thing is a joke... what's going to happen is the companies that emit carbon now are going to take their operations overseas where there aren't penalties. So not only will we lose jobs, but the same will be emitted over in India that was previously being emitted here. AND, we'll end up being MORE dependant on importing energy, which is some serious ironny.
But let's take one major profiteer... the biggest alarmist of them all, Al Gore, who is a partner in a law firm that has invested $1 billion into 40 companies that will benefit from the legislation:
| quote: | Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore left the White House seven years ago with less than $2 million in assets, including a Virginia home and the family farm in Tennessee. Now he's making enough to put $35 million in hedge funds and other private partnerships.
Gore invested the money with Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, California, firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products, according to a Feb. 1 securities filing. Capricorn was founded by billionaire Jeffrey Skoll, former president of EBay Inc. and an executive producer of Gore's Oscar-winning documentary film on global warming. |
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...hvg0&refer=home
Gore in 2008:
| quote: | | There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation. |
This is not referring to his non-profit business he loves to mention, these are investements he has PERSONAL interest in, and which Cap and Trade mandates would significanly increase he and his partners' portfolios. There are 4 climate lobbyists for every member of Congress by the way.
And how about the fact that his venture capital firm invested $6 million in "climate change software" that stands to turn BILLIONS in profit if the bill becomes law?
| quote: | Al Gore’s venture capital firm has invested $6 million in a software company that stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation — further fueling controversy that Gore lied about his profiteering from cap-and-trade to Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee during testimony in April.
Hara Software sells software to help track greenhouse gas emissions. The market for such software is now about $2.5 billion dollars in size, and is expected to grow by a factor of ten to $25 billion if cap-and-trade legislation is enacted, according to Hara CEO Amit Chatterjee.
Kleiner Perkins, a venture capital firm in which Al Gore is a partner, invested in Hara just last year. Chatterjee told Reuters that, “This company would not have existed if Al Gore had not bought off on the idea.” |
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11607
Read here for those in Congress, especially Barbara Boxer, who will profit GREATLY from the climate bill mandates... here's an excerpt:
| quote: | Ms. Boxer expects to scoop up auction revenues of some $3.32 trillion by 2050. Yes, that’s trillion. Her friends in Congress are already salivating over this new pot of gold. The way Congress works, the most vicious floor fights won’t be over whether this is a useful tax to create, but over who gets what portion of the spoils. In a conference call with reporters last Thursday, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry explained that he was disturbed by the effects of global warming on “crustaceans” and so would be pursuing changes to ensure that New England lobsters benefit from some of the loot.
…$802 billion would go for “relief” for low-income taxpayers… There’s also $190 billion to fund training for “green-collar jobs,” which are supposed to replace the jobs that will be lost in carbon-emitting industries. Another $288 billion would go to “wildlife adaptation,” whatever that means, and another $237 billion to the states for the same goal. Some $342 billion would be spent on international aid, $171 billion for mass transit, and untold billions for alternative energy and research – and we’re just starting.
Ms. Boxer would only auction about half of the carbon allowances; she reserves the rest for politically favored supplicants. These groups might be Indian tribes (big campaign donors!), or states rewarded for “taking the lead” on emissions reductions like Ms. Boxer’s California. Those lucky winners would be able to sell those allowances for cash. The Senator estimates that the value of the handouts totals $3.42 trillion. For those keeping track, that’s more than $6.7 trillion in revenue handouts so far.
The bill also tries to buy off businesses that might otherwise try to defeat the legislation. Thus carbon-heavy manufacturers like steel and cement will get $213 billion “to help them adjust,” while fossil-fuel utilities will get $307 billion in “transition assistance.” No less than $34 billion is headed to oil refiners. Given that all of these folks have powerful Senate friends, they will probably extract a larger ransom if cap and trade ever does become law. |
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...g2:r3:c0.153636
So, come on... let's stop pretending that politicinas desperately want to ram this bill through before it gets read because they genuinely care about saving the planet. You can't be this foolish.
As summed up in The American Consumer, "By creating tradable financial assets worth tens of billions of dollars for governments to distribute among their industries and plants and then monitor, a global cap-and-trade program also introduces powerful incentives to cheat by corrupt and radical governments. Corrupt governments will almost certainly distribute permits in ways that favor their business supporters and understate their actual energy use and emissions." |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
You must be joking. The whole thing is a joke... what's going to happen is the companies that emit carbon now are going to take their operations overseas where there aren't penalties. So not only will we lose jobs, but the same will be emitted over in India that was previously being emitted here. AND, we'll end up being MORE dependant on importing energy, which is some serious ironny. |
im not really sure you understood what i said but what you've written here has nothing to do with anything i was discussing with d-res. |
|
|
|
|
