Thread: Copenhagen Summit and US Senate Climate Legislation

I take it you are not one of the people who think global man made climate change is a fruad?

I'm starting to lose hope entirely in our nation and the world's ability to wise up and change, which raises the question of will I even live out my natural lifetime? Or at least a happy, normal lifetime?

Why are you expecting a premature death? Your natural lifetime is about 30 years. Only in the industrial age has it lengthened.

There are much more pressing matters than the anthropic global warming hypothesis and most people including those in government are completely pig ignorant of them because of the inflated press coverage of global warming.

Most of them are linked to sustainability. The Earth is probably overpopulated as it is. In particular oil will become scarce very soon which will cause a lot of economic turmoil, and possibly a lot of warfare and social upheaval. Food and water and energy could all become scarce.

Very few governments are actually doing anything about this. The only ones which are are those which have very good political systems where the self interest of politicians doesn't have much sway, such as Switzerland and Norway which are quickly achieving oil free economies.

The UK and US are both pretty terrible in this respect. In the UK less than 1% of our energy is generated by renewables which really is a travesty (yet still our politicians have the hubris to lecture other poorer countries about global warming...). It'll be a pretty bad time when the shit finally hits the fan and we have to bend to the whims of Russia and the Middle East.

yep - i believe many of the participants of the summit arrived in limousines! how appropriate.

Originally Posted by Alric

I take it you are not one of the people who think global man made climate change is a fruad?

And I take it that you have the Fox News perspective that it is a fraud.

Facts from the EPA:

The decade ending next week was the hottest decade on record with 8 of the hottest 10 years having occurred since 2000.

2009 will end up as one of the 5 hottest years on record and scientists predict that, with a moderate El Nino, 2010 will break the record.

There is now more carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere than anytime in at least the last 2.1 million years. Yet we continue to emit more than 8 billion tons of CO2 per year from the burning of fossil fuels and global emissions are increasing.

For the third year in a row, the summer Arctic sea ice melt was well above normal, posing a mortal threat to Arctic wildlife like polar bears.

In Alaska, only 42% of polar bear cubs now survive their first year, down from 65% 15 years ago.

By the end of the century, with business-as-usual emissions, it may no longer be possible to produce some of the main tree crops currently grown in California and U.S. production of corn, soybeans and cotton could decrease as much as 82%.

Saying that man made climate change IS real is a problem for big oil companies, other major polluters and lobbyists, which is why naturally these people are trying to weaken these basic scientific findings.

Where's your evidence?

Where's your evidence?

Where's yours? You've not given any evidence for the AGW hypothesis. Just a random bunch of scientifically irrelevant facts.

In the UK this year's summer was very mild and this winter is causing havoc because it's colder than it's been for 20 years. The MET office predicted it was going to be scorching. Another epic fail from them in trying to make long term climate predictions.

There are now more estate agents on the planet then there have been for the past 5 billion years and yet we keep training more at an unprecedented rate.

The south pole is growing.

Polar bear populations always vary. There's even a biological law which says that populations always vary.

Oil companies have nothing to do with science.

As far as I can tell the only evidence for AGW are the computer models, and if you look at the email leaks, you'll see that they're a farce.

But like I say, I don't even care that much. We urgently need to reduce oil consumption and even when threatened with the end of the world politicans can't gain any inertia so there's really no fucking hope at all.

Tell me more on this fraud, please.

Talking about 'fraud' is one of the most disgusting misdirections I have ever witnessed. Don't you see it rotates around the term 'global warming' and eventually actually makes you say :

Originally Posted by Xei

You've not given any evidence for the AGW hypothesis. Just a random bunch of scientifically irrelevant facts.

on the biggest problems of our planet.

It's not about the 'global warming' as a consequence. It's about the constant environmental awareness increase, as the biggest threat to polluter lobbies. Of course they're putting out a fraud story.

But, OK, I would like to understand, who benefits on this global warming fraud? Maybe I missed on something important.

Polar bear populations always vary. There's even a biological law which says that populations always vary.

Yeah, biological laws and fur market. Humans rock.

All I know is, it is December 25th, and 20ºC (68ºF) here in Croatia, and it should be snowing. Pretty much everyone is feeling sick.

Just give it a few years. The global cooling scare will make its way back yet again. The extreme of the temperature scare has switched like seven times since the 1800's. At this point, I am not worried that the sky is falling. "Wolf" has been cried way too many times.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...fireandice.asp

I was a child in the 1970's, and the environmental activism fad of the era was this...



http://www.infowars.com/cooling-tren...eory-in-doubt/

Go ahead and call bullshit on Al Gore, the grand wizard of the global warming fad, because he is quite full of it. The temperature of the core of Earth is is in the low thousands.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4660925_te...ter-earth.html

Now here's Al Whore with his true ignorance...



The godfather of global warming obviously isn't such an expert on Earth temperature. By the way, global warming is happening on Mars.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

on the biggest problems of our planet.

It's not about the 'global warming' as a consequence. It's about the constant environmental awareness increase, as the biggest threat to polluter lobbies. Of course they're putting out a fraud story.

But, OK, I would like to understand, who benefits on this global warming fraud? Maybe I missed on something important.

I don't have any idea what you're talking about. You're saying you're opposed to rational scientific thought..?

I don't want to go into conspiracies because like I say there are interests on both sides of the arguments and it detracts from the science, but since you're asking, those who benefit include all of the people employed to do global warming research (their jobs wouldn't exist and a lot of them would have useless degrees if AGW turned out to be baseless) and politicians who see taxation opportunities.

Go ahead and call bullshit on Al Gore, the grand wizard of the global warming fad, because he is quite full of it. The temperature of the core of Earth is is in the low thousands.

To be honest Al Gore isn't a scientist so we shouldn't really care what he thinks. Outside of America he's still obscure but GW is still well in the spotlight due to extensive media coverage.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't have any idea what you're talking about. You're saying you're opposed to rational scientific thought..?

I'm saying, the problems DeeryTheDeer mentioned are real, and people are starting to put them aside and thinking about whether it is a global warming, colding, or a fraud... Misdirection! It's a global shit here and now, and those dudes in Copenhagen should have done something about it, instead of being oil lobbysts' bitches as usual.

Let me put it this way, you don't even have to be a scientist to figure out we are constantly poisoned, just go to China and take a breath.

What I think is sad is that we need to tell the world that our use of petrol may
cause serious long term environmental damage in order to get them to use
something cleaner. I don't know if anyone has realized this, but a lot of the
byproducts of burning petrol are toxic to us. It browns the horizon in the cities
(a daily sight for me) and makes the air smell wrong. The fact that it's not
healthy should be reason enough to divert our efforts into developing new fuel
sources, especially considering that our need for fuel will continue to grow as
our industry does worldwide.

Uh but I don't live in China.

And life expectancies have doubled in the industrial age. You're being paranoid.

What's 'global shit'? What are we supposed to do about 'global shit' if we don't know if it's 'cooling or warming'?

Originally Posted by Invader

What I think is sad is that we need to tell the world that our use of petrol may
cause serious long term environmental damage in order to get them to use
something cleaner. I don't know if anyone has realized this, but a lot of the
byproducts of burning petrol are toxic to us. It browns the horizon in the cities
(a daily sight for me) and makes the air smell wrong. The fact that it's not
healthy should be reason enough to divert our efforts into developing new fuel
sources, especially considering that our need for fuel will continue to grow as
our industry does worldwide.

.

climate change or not, we're destroying the environment. who else could do that besides people?

all the debate is pretty much a waste. sorry, but i'd like to grow old and still see nature instead of an ever developing, suffocating network of roads, concrete, and so forth. i don't care if al gore is 'right' or not.

So you'd rather have no roads?

Originally Posted by Xei

So you'd rather have no roads?

I'd rather we didn't have roads, but rather used teleportation.

False Dilemma. Do not distort his meaning.

Originally Posted by Cygnus

ever developing, suffocating network of roads, concrete, and so forth.

Originally Posted by cygnus

climate change or not, we're destroying the environment. who else could do that besides people?

The elements and forces of nature that created us have that power.

False Dilemma. Do not distort his meaning.

Well if that was his meaning then he was implying that some roads is ok but more roads is not.

Please use logic.

I merely pointed out the part of the sentence you missed. Had I spelled it out
for you I'd have felt that I was insulting your intelligence.

I didn't miss out anything. What I asked was the logical consequence, as I had to spell out to you...

. . .

Originally Posted by Xei

I didn't miss out anything.

You derived a more extreme meaning of what Cygnus was saying.
Cygnus says, "No ever developing network of roads, etc"
Your assumption, "He wants no roads"

Your assumption here is the logical consequence.

If you really did not miss out of anything and were completely aware of the
words "ever developing" in Cygnus's statement, then what you imply by your
conclusion is that a person can either want roads or not want roads at all.
Hence false dilemma. Do you understand my point of view now?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The elements and forces of nature that created us have that power.

yes, there are natural disasters. land is split by tectonic shifts, mountains are raised and worn down. climate change occurs naturally. the continents have come together as one and split up again many times.

to equate anthropogenic destruction of nature with any of these things is completely missing the point. you could also say that while a person can adjust the thermostat in their house, the forces of nature bring about a new season.

our species has a long history of causing species extinctions and degrading the environment in some way, but the ways in which we now relate to our world are vastly different from how they were only a couple centuries ago.

so when you combine a utilitarian, materialistic worldview with capitalism, technology and population growth, you have something that degrades not only the environment but the human experience at a very fundamental level.

of course you can say, "would you rather not have technology, an increased life expectancy, or roads?"

to have a balanced application of our potential as a species might mean acknowledging the weight of an unsustainable way of life, the benefits of man-made elements, and the costs to our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health.

we are far from anything balanced.

Originally Posted by cygnus

our species has a long history of causing species extinctions and degrading the environment in some way, but the ways in which we now relate to our world are vastly different from how they were only a couple centuries ago.

so when you combine a utilitarian, materialistic worldview with capitalism, technology and population growth, you have something that degrades not only the environment but the human experience at a very fundamental level.

What wonderful nonsense. Earth has experienced 5 mass extinctions effectively eliminating 97% of the species...how many of those were actually caused by humans? In fact how many of those even had mammals in them? The dodo bird dies and suddenly the human race is the cause of extinction? Really?

Concerning the fact that you don't find meaning in life due to your motif of drowning materialism does not a fortiori mean that others don't find meaning and have insightful, moving life experiences. In fact, I argue that such experiences are encouraged, easily realized, or are only existent because of the interests of capital intense labor. There are those who find meaning in labor but it is my belief that many find joy in libation. Libation is not possible under feudalism nor under primitive economies.