Printable View
We are finally having a real Chicago winter, like we have not had in 15 years or more!!
Could all the low emission standards for cars, catalytic converters, and restrictions on factory smoke stacks have finally solved the problem?
Is Global Warming over?
we had a huge dump of snow for our area. last time was 5 years ago, time before that was 10 or so. but used to be like this every year.
dunno about global warming. who knows.
maybe the planet is just going through cycles we dont understand.
Global Warming over? It's a scam, Al Gore is lying sack of s__t!!! Check out the Global Warming Myth.... on Google Video, etc.... The Global Warming myth is good for one thing, providing an excuse for introducing new taxes to the sheeple! :eek:
Then how do you explain SEVENTY DEGREES in Chicago, in JANUARY, last year?
Now we have normal winters again, like it never happened?
I think the very fact that Obama is the new president has fixed Global warming, and we are now saved!! :D
'Global warming' is an expression for quick recognition by idiots. The phenomena is 'climate change'. This means all kinds of adverse climate change, and mostly an increase in the parameters of extreme weather.
There are no beneficial changes: the few slightly good changes depending on where you are will be vastly swamped by the actions of people trying to keep the status quo of unsustainable trade and business practice (e.g. South Korea has just got a 99 year lease on approximately half of Madagascan farmland to grow monoculture non-native crops: corn for feeding S Korea and palm oil for bioethanol; using primarily imported South African labour) leading to further imbalances in natural order and world economics and ultimately more war over resource shortages.
Of course natural cycles are involved, and of course it's not all man-made. However, our complete ignoring of the intensity of the emergency and our inaction means that the tipping point is here, or will be very soon, and this recession (as yet mild compared to the complete collapse of the global financial framework hand in hand with the ecosystem to come) is the first sign of reality coming home to roost.
Firepalm: you keep believing random Youtube videos, and telling us we're crackpots and frauds! I prefer to believe the science, which I studied from a biological PoV i.e. no vested interests, just observing phenomena... and across the board, the ecosystem was collapsing then (ten years ago) and is even more so now.
On this board I know I'm wasting my time, because the real sheeple: the naysayers are rife. But I still prefer to listen to the scientists, rather than you nuts.
And a very Merry Christmas to you all! :D
roflmao :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by rd's alias - 1a
Science? The video includes footage from the BBC documentary 'Global Warming Myth' and the persons interviewed are in fact Scientists, watch the video. Once again Al Gore is a lying sack of s__t (oh and a party with a vested interest). :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Punch
Do some ****ing research, sheeple! :D At least one of the scientists in that BBC piece has already complained officially to the BBC for misrepresentation: his interview was 40 minutes long and condensed to under two minutes saying the opposite of what he has concluded because of what the 'documentary' makers wanted to say!Quote:
Originally Posted by firepalm
That's the problem with the net: if you get all your info from edited 10-min compilations from edited snippets on Youtube, it's no wonder you're spouting uninformed bollocks.
I don't give a monkeys about Al Gore: there are huge bodies of science who have come to similar conclusions (and with worse and worse consequences for our continued survival). Plus, like I said I have researched the science myself and with countless peers with no (or at least few distinguishable) vested interests through experimental method and observation of natural phenomena with no direction as to what we should conclude.
Versus how many Scientists that DON'T go along with the Global Warming Propaganda? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr Punch
:rolleyes:
Since I also studied economics, perhaps you'd also like to analyse how the environmental lobbyists are making money off the 'propaganda' for us, or maybe just how the governments are making money from what 'new taxes'... and then perhaps balance it with a comparative study of how much money oil, chemical and medical multinationals for example spend on a) climate change research, b) PR (esp how much is spent on advisors to governments and other anti-climate change PR), c) taxes to major political parties.
Or you could just link another couple of edited ten-minute snippets of Youtube.
Thanks! :D
In Summary: People Suck!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Punch
:D
the hubris of humans in thinking that this world will stay exactly the way it was at the start of the industrial revolution...also the start of a lot of recorded natural history (weather records, USGS data on river and ocean levels, etc) is soooo funnneee...ok, ya'll can't possibly know what my 4 year old psuedo adopted niece sounds like when she says that but it's hilarious, trust me...she already seems to have a knack for making people sound like idiots, i love it :)
Not my choice of words, but I would agree. Global warming is a scare tactic being used to spread a meme in order to implement a huge carbon based tax collection system.Quote:
Originally Posted by firepalm
No buy in, no new taxes.
buy in = continued slavery.
happy christmas!
:p
****, I actually sort of agree with a canadian ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by David Jamieson
but, yea, NC is proposing a per mile tax on every vehicle...supposedly to supplement lost tax income due to less gas being purchased because more and more vehicles are getting better gas mileage...
...and you freaking liberals wonder why some of us want to buy guns...the biggest effing criminals of our time are ones we vote in to office...over and over again...doesn't matter what color stripes they are wearing...they are all the same...
Oh, economics part time student... therefore that is supposedly validates all your statements or arguments in support of Global Warming? I link to youtube videos as a means for easy reference (which btw are not the homemade garden variety; BBC Global Warming Swindle, etc..).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Punch
Money from the GW propaganda? Carbon Taxes... Research Grants...
Hell even John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel says Global Warming is the greatest scam in history!
Oh here's another 10 minute link take the time to look at another perspective (in oppostion to the Global Warming Propaganda) from the President of the Czech Republic interviewed by Glen Beck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9WFDcZxT0s
I just spent another hour shoveling snow, I spent an hour on Friday, on Saturday, 30 min on Sunday and now today.
**** YOU !
I am moving to Turks and Caicos !
I still a bit jarred that we never made those lush little islands provinces.Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin
Man, talk about a blown chance at greatness.
Don't even get me started !!Quote:
Originally Posted by David Jamieson
:mad:
Dude, totally.
well, it would probably be loaded with newfies looking for work within a week anyway. lol
no offense Newfs! :p
I like newfoundlanders.
Who else can make crushing baby seal skulls seem somehow rebellious?
Novies? They can do that too!
Do i get a pair of gloves for answering? :p
seriously though, if it wasn't for European buyers and European users, there would be no seal hunt.
they are attempting to hit at the trade in the wrong place.
If you end the demand, you end the supply.
Biggest buyers are the Northern European states.
Mind you, this isn't the first time an issue or problem has been tackled from the wrong end. It happens all the time in this age of deception, obfuscation and acceptance of outright lies.
what times we live in eh?
I'm not opposed to hunting as long as it is done in a humane manner, is not conducted against an apex (or near-apex) predator and within quotas that do not harm the overall population of the species.
Seals are prey for bears and orcas, the hunt is controlled and, so as long as the animals are not subjected to cruel treatment prior to death I really don't care.
Furthermore I note the hypocracy of people who throw red paint at fur wearers while wearing leather shoes.
As I regularly DO wear leather I would be a hypocrite to oppose the fur industry on anything other than scarcity and environmental impact... so those are the standards I set.
First person I see wearing timberwolf pelt though gets a whole can of red paint...
Wolves are too vulnerable and too valuable for population maintenance of Deer and rodents to risk hunting. That goes double for great cats and bears.
And whaling is just plain wrong.
People are right. Global Climate Change, despite being supported by a large amount of evidence and the vast majority of serious scientists who are studying the issue (which is called a scientific consensus, despite the handful of naysayers) is a myth. Just like the erosion of the ozone layer (also blamed on natural cycles back in the day), or evolution. *rolleyes*
A few doubters doesn't make it wrong. Climate change deniers would like you to think there is a raging debate. There is not. There is an extremely vocal minority of learned people who disagree with the consensus, and happen to be wrong in this case, and a large number of ideologues like Rush Limbaugh with very loud mouths.
The actual evidence is out there, and the correlation between rising greenhouse gasses and increases in average temperature is undeniable. I agree that we probably don't understand everything - but that, if anything, is reason to proceed with CAUTION and try and curb industry's impact rather than deny it has any effect.
What harm comes of improving emissions standards, trying to shift to non-fossil fuels, avoiding petroleum-based fertilizers when possible, and ending agribusiness subsidies in the United States at the very least? None that come immediately to mind. It's a prudent course of action.
I liked the risk / benefits matrix I once saw on climate change
Position 1: Climate Change is real
Position 2: Climate change is not real
Action 1: Do nothing
Action 2: Enact legislation geared at reducing emmissions
P1 A1: Continued climate change, possible catrostrophy.
P2 A1: Nothing happens
P1 A2: Potentially curtail or reduce the impact of human-caused climate change.
P2 A2: Waste some money.
P1 A2 has a positive effect.
P1 A1 has a strong negative effect.
P2 A2 has a weak negative effect.
P2 A1 is neutral.
So with action 1 the choices are between a neutral outcome and a significant negative outcome. Action 2 provides choices between a positive outcome and a weak negative outcome.
The potential benefit of A2 thus outweighs the potential benefit of A1.
The potential risk of A1 outweighs the potential risk of A2.
Short of certainty A2 is thus the more logical choice.
Now balance of probability presently supports P1 more than P2, this makes the choice of A2 over A1 even clearer.
SimonM;
That's exactly it. Even if you deny it exists or is at least significantly a man-made problem, where is the harm in trying to reduce emissions and fossil fuel use? The answer is that there is no harm. It harms nobody, and might help. And "Waste some money," is actually not quite right because we're actually talking about scientific R&D as a result. Going to the moon was pretty much a "waste of money," by that measure too, but the spinoff benefits mattered/matter quite a bit.
I laugh at all the people who say "Wow it's cold....Global warming must be over".
One has to look at the long term effect. For example I was watching a show about the Titantic last night and they talked about the Ice patrol. These are people in airplanes using sonar and radar who are looking for icebergs in the shipping lanes. Well, here lately those people appear to have a lot of time on their hands. In some recent years no icebergs have made it down to the shipping lanes.
Agree with Boulder Dawg. You need to look at long term trends, not what happens in one location over a short time frame. The other thing is that weather patterns may shift as a result of global change so that some places actually get more severe weather (ie colder winters and hotter summers.)
There is wide scientific consensus that a) global warming is happening 2) it is a result of increased greenhouse gas emissions. The "scientists" who disagree with points 1 and 2 are either not climatologists (ie meteorologists,etc.) or are in the pocket of the oil industry.
What we don't know yet is what the impact will be. A warmer planet may actually benefit some regions (ie by improving agriculture) and be detrimental to others (ie drought). And sea level will rise but I think it is unclear just how much it will rise.
But I say we error on the side of caution with this issue.
EO
And erring on the side of caution is precisely what I proposed. :cool:
Ha ha! That's just Pascal's Wager updated for the science people.Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonM
Really, it's quite simple, at least more simple than that:
Do you want polluted smog in your air so you can't go outside some days of the year? Do you want food that tastes like garbage? Do you want your lakes filled with sludge and chemicals so you can't swim in them?
The pollution debate is simple: you'd have to be a loon to agree to say you want pollution and muck everywhere. Let's fix that and if GCC is related, it'll get fixed along the way.
The way I see it, the GCC issue is the best thing to happen to big business, because it's such a large issue dealing with so many variables, it's hard to say conclusively...so the doubt is what they get people with and it takes people's minds off the real issue: cleaning up our cities, our forests, our oceans...etc.
pollution and climate change are separate issues.
I would like to see more laws enacted in re: pollution.
climate change? I'm afraid there really isn't much we can do about it overall except to curb our wasteful ways, which brings us back to pollution reduction.
change the focus, change the plan and change the meme.
the climate change argument serves government and industry.
the pollution argument serves the people but grates against the government and industry because it is they who must pay the price and be policed.
in the meantime, how many of you have been told to watch your water and electricity consumption because of pollution and conservation?
how often do you hear that same warning being given to industry?
It is industry that consumes the most and has the most unfettered run at it.
from operations to distribution, it is where the focus needs to be when it comes to cleaning stuff up, but it always seems to come back to "use your ac less" or stop using a dryer or some such other nonsense that distracts from the real problem.
unfortunately, the depression that is upon us is probably what it's gonna take to really enact change.
alternatively, we may enter into full out global war which will also take care of many of the issues we are faced with.
either way, people are going to die because of the folly of humanity.
happy christmas! :p
They are definitely different issues but my point was that if we focus on one that we know is our fault: pollution, then maybe the one that we "MIGHT" be influencing should be dealt with as well. Natural climate change is a whole other story...Quote:
Originally Posted by David Jamieson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDVyY7RbTIY
Raises some good questions & with all this 'urgency' why isn't this being discussed?
David just keeps getting better and better. That's Gong fu.
Although I suppose it's just a band aid, it is a great idea and should be mass produced! Just like the electric car and countless other devices that we just don't have. I've said it for a long time, unless the products are made available, people will not use them...seems like rocket science to some. As better lifestyle choices are made available, thus increasing the quality of life, people change.Quote:
Originally Posted by firepalm
Cleaning up the pollution we emit into the environment is the concern of everyone whether they're right, left, or just plain wrong...I asked a friend who is a conservative guy and basically opposes most any environmental issue: without the forests, which are getting clear cut, where would you go hunting? Unfortunately certain political interests are masking the real issue, cleaning up our behaviour. But that's a stretch: people still smoke cigarettes despite the package telling them they are going to die! LOL!
regarding the scrubbers.
Our premiere in the province of Ontario in Canada has had these (Carbon Scrubbers) on the table of election promises since he came to office. In fact, the guy before him also had them as an issue.
They have resisted all measures of pollution reduction as far as clean energy goes and continually weasel out of doing their part in making the legislation happen.
Year after year, people die from smog related respiratory failure. the Toronto area alone is plagued with this year after year. smaller centers of less than 1 million people don't notice it much, but if they do, then there is an even bigger problem.
Here's some interesting info: http://spacing.ca/wire/?p=1037
So, what I am saying is that natural climate change is inevitable. For pete's sake we're living amidst the end of a peak ice age and we all know about it!
Secondly, the problem is pollution is killing us.
thirdly, as the clip points out and as I am saying the technology exists.
what's left but legislation to put it into use and gradual shifting to more clean energy that provides all the same conveniences we have now.
I for one am not at all interested in living like a dirty hippy if there is not a need to do so. :)
Nice guess. I'm not a part-time student, but I have worked on a financial feasibility study on implementation of the Marrakech Accord for the UFJ and UNEP, and do work directly for the ex-deputy environment minister of Japan (who incidentally is a highly qualified environmental scientist with expertise in hormone disrupters which as I'm sure you know has a direct bearing on air pollution and a tangental link to climate change problems) and can talk directly about the funding problems that even such major organisations have because of industry opposition... so no, sorry, no expert, but no part-time economics student either.Quote:
Originally Posted by firepalm
So again, who makes the money? In Japan, and this fairly typical of developed countries, the Ministry of the Environment has about 800 permanent employees: MITI - over 4000... and their budgets reflect that even more dramatically.
LOL, this is proof you don't know wtf you're talking about right here.Quote:
Originally Posted by firepalm
Again: look at who's paying - which industries stand to make most out of this debate? The richest ones: oil, gas, chemical, medical which hand in hand with some countries' Depts of Industry are funding the big research. I've worked in funding for environmental research: it isn't there unless you have big business behind you.
Hell, even John Coleman can prove you don't know what you're talking about! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by firepalm
News: (real news, not conservative knee-jerker Glenn Beck) Coleman is a weather man. Now, don't get me wrong, it takes a lot of skill and expertise to be able to tell what the weather's going to be like in a day or two, but look:
1) His job is to look at the weather on a day to day basis: not to look at the cumulative effects of say, an average rainfall of plus 5 mm in June-September plus a rise of .5 degrees on the population of English honey-bees...
2) His job is entertainment: if anyone is likely to have a vested interest in saying any old controversial **** I'd take him over climate change scientists and biologists any day!
And Glenn Beck...? Puhlease. He says we're overreacting - we haven't reacted at all yet. Look at it this way: we voluntarily return our standard of living to what it was immediately post-war, or we have it returned to what it was 150 years ago through a cycle of resource wars, terrorism, and yes, climate change.
Nice about-turn BTW, from agreeing with firepalm that climate change is a scam... and then the way you work in the ice age gag later as if it means we can't do anything in terms of preventative and protective measures/amelioration.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Jamieson
But, my snide BS aside, you're right: it all boils down to stopping arguing and reducing waste.
For the big industries I've mentioned who aren't interested in curbing their profligacy, sure. And for their vested interested government departments, sure. Personally, 'Id do away with the Department/Ministry of environment in every government, and instead have a (sensible = ie, agrees with me! :D ) scientific advisor in every dept instead.Quote:
the climate change argument serves government and industry.
Sure, industry creates the most waste. But that doesn't mean we can't do more personally. It's a myth that individual's actions don7t mean anything.Quote:
in the meantime, how many of you have been told to watch your water and electricity consumption because of pollution and conservation?
how often do you hear that same warning being given to industry?
It is industry that consumes the most and has the most unfettered run at it.
from operations to distribution, it is where the focus needs to be when it comes to cleaning stuff up, but it always seems to come back to "use your ac less" or stop using a dryer or some such other nonsense that distracts from the real problem.
Everything we do has an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by various reports
This year I have cut my family's use of tissues by about 80%, by using more handkerchiefs and towels. I've reduced the use of cling film by increasing use of Tupperware etc. I've reduced the use of water through a filter fitting on my tap (couple of hundred yen). I've cut the use of detergent and water through rinsing dirty clothes immediately, and rinsing dishes immediately. I've reduced water through not flushing the toilet every time I pee (obviously in the summer it would get pretty high if I left it but in the winter esp at night, no prob). I already switched off all lights in rooms we're not using... That's just off the top of my head.
I don't see that as unfortunate: it was necessary and inevitable. I just hope the recession gets sufficiently bad before this:Quote:
unfortunately, the depression that is upon us is probably what it's gonna take to really enact change.
gets worse...Quote:
alternatively, we may enter into full out global war which will also take care of many of the issues we are faced with.
I agree we can curb "fossil fuel" usage and use cleaner energy sources.
I disagree that we can't replace this technology gradually and maintain or even grow our current lifestyles and bring about even more leisure time in order to pursue self realisation as opposed to setting all your time around meeting goals of pollution reduction, recycling, reusing etc etc.
I think we can set our behaviours in other directions as a society, I also believe that our neglect, laziness and greed works against that end.
There is a dire need for legislation and it is not forthcoming. that is the most interesting part.
seems the powers that be are content with us bearing the guilt and altering our personal behaviours as opposed to actually hitting at the core of the problem which is industry and legislation around pollution standards.
for the natural part of climate change that is inevitable, there is zero zip nada we can do about it and better to simply adapt over time to it.