Global Warming, the real threat to society
I think that's a great idea. Nathan raises a good point badly, which is that raising the cost of petrol mainly effects poor people. While I think it is clear that continuing to use petrol at current levels hurts poor people even more, it's hard to argue about the damage we will see in the next 100 years (and greater) instead of the damage we would see immediately. However all we need to do is offer a cheaper alternative to using petrol, and then raise the costs of petrol to force people to use that cheaper alternative. Clearly it's a complicated issue when you consider rural areas and some lowering of quality of life might be expected. However when you compare it to the loss of quality of life when half the world doesn't have enough water and we're in the middle of the worst depression we've ever seen, I would prefer to have to wait to catch a bus, instead of being able to drive to where-ever I want immediately. I say this, not as an environmental celebrity, but as somebody who already does not drive anywhere, uses only hydro electricity, and this week managed to help raise over $20,000 for Australia's largest environmental charity - an organisation which has saved over 20,000,000 hectares of Australian wilderness and been responsible for removing 5% of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Nathan can call environmentalists hypocrites as much as he wants, but that doesn't change what they're saying from being true. It just means some of them need to start following their own directions.
I thought people might be interested in reading this interview with the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus (A twisted cross between the world champion of footbag and the fat man who sneaks into children's houses to give them presents).
Czech president Vaclav Klaus, in Czech daily Hospodarske Noviny, on the myth of man-made global warming
QUESTION: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released its report and you say that global warming is a myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?
Klaus: It's not my idea. Global warming is a myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the UN panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organisation of green flavour. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicised scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.
Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "buts" are scratched, removed and replaced with oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians ...
Question: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that man is demolishing the planet and himself?
Klaus: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.
Question: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?
Klaus: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing ... We know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to nature, and vice versa. It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging nature -- by eliminating private ownership and similar things -- much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that on February 8, 2007, nature is protected incomparably more than on February 8 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.
Slinky linky
Czech president Vaclav Klaus, in Czech daily Hospodarske Noviny, on the myth of man-made global warming
QUESTION: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released its report and you say that global warming is a myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?
Klaus: It's not my idea. Global warming is a myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the UN panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organisation of green flavour. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicised scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.
Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "buts" are scratched, removed and replaced with oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians ...
Question: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that man is demolishing the planet and himself?
Klaus: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.
Question: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?
Klaus: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing ... We know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to nature, and vice versa. It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging nature -- by eliminating private ownership and similar things -- much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that on February 8, 2007, nature is protected incomparably more than on February 8 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.
Slinky linky
http://www.amazon.com/Weather-Makers-Ch ... F8&s=books
From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. Mammologist and paleontologist Flannery (The Eternal Frontier), who in recent years has become well known for his controversial ideas on conservation, the environment and population control, presents a straightforward and powerfully written look at the connection between climate change and global warming. It's destined to become required reading following Hurricane Katrina as the focus shifts to the natural forces that may have produced such a devastating event. Much of the book's success is rooted in Flannery's succinct and fascinating insights into related topics, such as the differences between the terms greenhouse effect, global warming and climate change, and how the El Nino cycle of extreme climatic events had a profound re-organising effect on nature. But the heart of the book is Flannery's impassioned look at the earth's colossal carbon dioxide pollution problem and his argument for how we can shift from our current global reliance on fossil fuels to a hydrogen-based economy. Flannery consistently produces the hard goods related to his main message that our environmental behavior makes us all weather makers who already possess all the tools required to avoid catastrophic climate change.
good book.
From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. Mammologist and paleontologist Flannery (The Eternal Frontier), who in recent years has become well known for his controversial ideas on conservation, the environment and population control, presents a straightforward and powerfully written look at the connection between climate change and global warming. It's destined to become required reading following Hurricane Katrina as the focus shifts to the natural forces that may have produced such a devastating event. Much of the book's success is rooted in Flannery's succinct and fascinating insights into related topics, such as the differences between the terms greenhouse effect, global warming and climate change, and how the El Nino cycle of extreme climatic events had a profound re-organising effect on nature. But the heart of the book is Flannery's impassioned look at the earth's colossal carbon dioxide pollution problem and his argument for how we can shift from our current global reliance on fossil fuels to a hydrogen-based economy. Flannery consistently produces the hard goods related to his main message that our environmental behavior makes us all weather makers who already possess all the tools required to avoid catastrophic climate change.
good book.
Sil1
Stop saying the word essentially jeremy.
I havent even read the first few pages but its about global warming so.
I read Toms blog and i couldnt agree more with so many people being so inconsiderate. I think the problem is that too many people think "oh, as if one person is going to have any affect on the world" when deciding whether they make the effort to do environmentally friendly things. If we wanna solve this problem (which wont happen) then everybody needs to know that each and every person does make an effect, we could at least make things easier for our next generation. We dont want the next Vasek training in some fucked up condition do we?
I havent even read the first few pages but its about global warming so.
I read Toms blog and i couldnt agree more with so many people being so inconsiderate. I think the problem is that too many people think "oh, as if one person is going to have any affect on the world" when deciding whether they make the effort to do environmentally friendly things. If we wanna solve this problem (which wont happen) then everybody needs to know that each and every person does make an effect, we could at least make things easier for our next generation. We dont want the next Vasek training in some fucked up condition do we?
Alex Urano
Ok you're right, there was one post where I might have gone a little overboard with the "essentials" - I just wanted to be clear that that was the important conclusion of the data I was giving, but that it was more complicated than what I was writing. I could have probably replaced each "essentially" with an extra 1000 words explaining the specifics, but at the same time I didn't want to put forward my simplifications as complete facts.
I think the idea of personal social responsibility is completely bogus. So long as we're relying on people to "do the right thing," we'll continue to pollute the environment. It is that kind of free market capitalist economy that has lead to the destruction of the worlds environment. We're now at a stage in human history where if you go outside and find 10 different types of plants or animals, there is every likelihood that at least between 1 and 4 of those plants or animals will not exist by the time your great grandchildren are adults. 10 to 40% extinction rate of all plants and animals - this is what free market economy leads to. Capitalism will not save the planet.
What is needed is legislation from governments around the world so that people don't have a choice. If I go and burn a persons house down if face criminal charges, but if I burn coal and produce greenhouse gasses, significantly increasing the risk of everybody's houses burning down (according to the CSIRO), I actually get tax breaks and subsidies from the government.
Lets not rely on everybody "doing the right thing" - lets force everybody to do the right thing. Government legislation and a global approach is the only way we will see any success on this issue.
People bring up the issue of the hole in the ozone layer and talk about how we've managed to make real progress on that issue. The way that progress was made was not by people making personal choices not to use CFCs. Progress was made by governments agreeing that those products would not be sold. In Australia my state was the first state to outlaw CFCs in aerosol sprays, and soon the rest of the country followed suit. It was people making personal choices, it was the government saying that it was in societies best interests not to use those chemicals and that that was more important than free market economy.
I think the idea of personal social responsibility is completely bogus. So long as we're relying on people to "do the right thing," we'll continue to pollute the environment. It is that kind of free market capitalist economy that has lead to the destruction of the worlds environment. We're now at a stage in human history where if you go outside and find 10 different types of plants or animals, there is every likelihood that at least between 1 and 4 of those plants or animals will not exist by the time your great grandchildren are adults. 10 to 40% extinction rate of all plants and animals - this is what free market economy leads to. Capitalism will not save the planet.
What is needed is legislation from governments around the world so that people don't have a choice. If I go and burn a persons house down if face criminal charges, but if I burn coal and produce greenhouse gasses, significantly increasing the risk of everybody's houses burning down (according to the CSIRO), I actually get tax breaks and subsidies from the government.
Lets not rely on everybody "doing the right thing" - lets force everybody to do the right thing. Government legislation and a global approach is the only way we will see any success on this issue.
People bring up the issue of the hole in the ozone layer and talk about how we've managed to make real progress on that issue. The way that progress was made was not by people making personal choices not to use CFCs. Progress was made by governments agreeing that those products would not be sold. In Australia my state was the first state to outlaw CFCs in aerosol sprays, and soon the rest of the country followed suit. It was people making personal choices, it was the government saying that it was in societies best interests not to use those chemicals and that that was more important than free market economy.
-
Switch Kicker
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1218
- Joined: 29 May 2005 16:04
- Location: Albert Lea, Minnesota
This is going to sound ignorant... But one day, we're all either going to be engulfed by the sun, or sucked into a black hole, and we're all going to crunch into a tiny dot... and then explode into another big bang... Someday. So what does it matter if we screw the planet and life a hundred years from now, if it's inevitabley going to happen anyway?
Yeah, sounds ignorant, but you gotta admit, it does make a little sense.
I mean, I'm sick of hearing about global warming and shiz from the governement, and then watching hte government donig nothing about it. I mean, by now, anything over a V-6 should already be outlawed, if the government actually cared, or was willing to do anything whatsoever about it. And more than just a handfull of States would already have signed bills to start a change over to wind power, adn solar power. I know Minnesota just signed a bill that will make Minnesota teh leading state in wind power. Iowa's been expanding on windpower for the past 10 years. And california is starting a cool little program where you put solar panels on your roof and provide your own powere. And in most cases, those solar panels would provide excess power, and the power company attached to their house, would have to pay them for the energy they provide to the power company. Thus, paying for themselves over time.
We have the power to provide 100% renewable energy. Looking at a chart of New York City, it showed how much space would be required to power NYC using wind power, or solar panels. If you put solar panels on less than a 1/3 of the building in NYC, they'd have their power supply right there. Windpower, if they put up the new giant ass windmills that provide enough power to light up 1,200 houses each, they'd have more than enough power, adn that with putting them in the NYC harbors... with about 500 feet inbetween each one, or more, so ships would still have no problem weaving between them. Some science mag I saw in my teacher's room...
It's just stupid that we're not taking these thing and truely applying them. And it's because we have stupid old ladies who don't want some "ugly" windmill on their land... PISS OFF YOU OLD BROAD!!! My god... for one, windmills, are not ugly. I think they look like cool shit. I'd pay money to let the government use one in my back yard. And secondly, quit being so god damn greedy. It's renewable god damn energy... What about the people that live near coal mines and nuclear power plants.. How the fuck do you think they feel? Selfcentered fuck heads....
Yeah, sounds ignorant, but you gotta admit, it does make a little sense.
I mean, I'm sick of hearing about global warming and shiz from the governement, and then watching hte government donig nothing about it. I mean, by now, anything over a V-6 should already be outlawed, if the government actually cared, or was willing to do anything whatsoever about it. And more than just a handfull of States would already have signed bills to start a change over to wind power, adn solar power. I know Minnesota just signed a bill that will make Minnesota teh leading state in wind power. Iowa's been expanding on windpower for the past 10 years. And california is starting a cool little program where you put solar panels on your roof and provide your own powere. And in most cases, those solar panels would provide excess power, and the power company attached to their house, would have to pay them for the energy they provide to the power company. Thus, paying for themselves over time.
We have the power to provide 100% renewable energy. Looking at a chart of New York City, it showed how much space would be required to power NYC using wind power, or solar panels. If you put solar panels on less than a 1/3 of the building in NYC, they'd have their power supply right there. Windpower, if they put up the new giant ass windmills that provide enough power to light up 1,200 houses each, they'd have more than enough power, adn that with putting them in the NYC harbors... with about 500 feet inbetween each one, or more, so ships would still have no problem weaving between them. Some science mag I saw in my teacher's room...
It's just stupid that we're not taking these thing and truely applying them. And it's because we have stupid old ladies who don't want some "ugly" windmill on their land... PISS OFF YOU OLD BROAD!!! My god... for one, windmills, are not ugly. I think they look like cool shit. I'd pay money to let the government use one in my back yard. And secondly, quit being so god damn greedy. It's renewable god damn energy... What about the people that live near coal mines and nuclear power plants.. How the fuck do you think they feel? Selfcentered fuck heads....
Not ignorant, just juvenile and angsty. You're so cute!Switch Kicker wrote:Yeah, sounds ignorant, but you gotta admit, it does make a little sense.
Colin Kennedy
[email protected]
[email protected]
This question "what does it matter if we screw the planet and life a hundred years from now, if it's inevitabley[sic] going to happen anyway?" can be answered in two different ways.Switch Kicker wrote:This is going to sound ignorant... But one day, we're all either going to be engulfed by the sun, or sucked into a black hole, and we're all going to crunch into a tiny dot... and then explode into another big bang... Someday. So what does it matter if we screw the planet and life a hundred years from now, if it's inevitabley going to happen anyway?
Yeah, sounds ignorant, but you gotta admit, it does make a little sense.
1. The research into morality and human emotions shows that we feel good when do good things for other people, and feel bad when we do bad things to people. This holds true for all of humanity, across cultural and religious views. By polluting the planet we are doing bad things for the people who come after us and we are causing them harm. This is something that makes us feel bad. We naturally do not want to feel bad, and the research shows that helping people will make us feel good. Clearly from a completely selfish and personal view, we will benefit more from addressing climate change than we will from not addressing it. You may say that we're putting in effort and money that we could put into partying or getting stoned or something, but why do we do those other things, because they make us feel good. I think we can all recognise the difference between a shallow, short lived feeling of happiness and a deeper more rewarding feeling.
2. Climate change is having a real negative impact on our lives right now. The World Health Organisation estimates that 150,000 people die every year as a result of climate change. [source] It is predicted that in our life times it will have a much more significant impact, including causing the worst economic depression the world has ever seen. [source] Do you want to be part of that? Do you want to suffer? The evidence shows that failing to address global warming will lead to you suffering and possibly dying, do you wish that to occur? If you do, why don't you give all your money to me from now on, then I can use it to useful things, and although you may starve to death, you don't care, so we both win. I presume this will not happen because you actually, like the rest of us, do not want to suffer. Preventing climate change is preventing our own suffering.
-
footjam_heger
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1185
- Joined: 25 Sep 2004 11:18
- Location: the world and europe
- Contact:
That's totally right. And that's the reason why we have to change their mind... everyone's mind.Uranos wrote: I havent even read the first few pages but its about global warming so.
I read Toms blog and i couldnt agree more with so many people being so inconsiderate. I think the problem is that too many people think "oh, as if one person is going to have any affect on the world" when deciding whether they make the effort to do environmentally friendly things. If we wanna solve this problem (which wont happen) then everybody needs to know that each and every person does make an effect, we could at least make things easier for our next generation.
Little things make changes happen.
-
Switch Kicker
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1218
- Joined: 29 May 2005 16:04
- Location: Albert Lea, Minnesota
Already changed, however I fail to see what's wrong with the picture. Breast feeding is completely natural and I don't see what's wrong with breasts. That image was part of a national advertising campaign across the US and was on 30 m billboards, buses, magazines and probably many other places. You may think it was inappropriate, but you also think children starving to death is a good thing, so in the minds of about 95% of the world, you have no moral credibility. Considering the image passes US censorship and advertising laws, one has to wonder what people had a problem with.
-
Switch Kicker
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1218
- Joined: 29 May 2005 16:04
- Location: Albert Lea, Minnesota
Whatever Jeremy.-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
If you live in Britain, try to check this documentary set to air Thursday.
Global warming labeled a "scam"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20 ... -6282r.htm
from page 2, a section I liked:
It does make you think, if people are pouring billions of dollars into science, to prove that "warming exists and is directly caused by man", then those receiving the most funding .....will find the science that their money asks them to find.
I lost the link for the prominent French scientist, who now disagrees with the "consensus", and points out that the U.N. politicians wrote the report, not the scientists.
-------------------
More info will surely come out, showing more and more that man-made warming is the biggest crock of shit ever, and the biggest hoax ever pulled on the Western world.
Let's hope the hoaxers dont pull off the biggest theft the world has ever seen, while also advancing and/or implementing nearly every piece of socialist ideology.... as a solution to the warming.
p.s. Find a more attractive breastfeeder, for that avatar
Global warming labeled a "scam"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20 ... -6282r.htm
from page 2, a section I liked:
last sentence:"The Great Global Warming Swindle" also questions an assertion by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report, published last month, that it was backed by some 2,500 of the world's leading scientists.
Another of Mr. Durkin's professors, Paul Reiter of Paris' Pasteur Institute, an expert in malaria, calls the U.N. report a "sham" because, he says, it included the names of scientists -- including his own -- who disagreed with the report and who resigned from the panel.
"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he says. "It's not true."
"At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion, and this is dangerous," he says(Mr. Stott)
It does make you think, if people are pouring billions of dollars into science, to prove that "warming exists and is directly caused by man", then those receiving the most funding .....will find the science that their money asks them to find.
I lost the link for the prominent French scientist, who now disagrees with the "consensus", and points out that the U.N. politicians wrote the report, not the scientists.
-------------------
More info will surely come out, showing more and more that man-made warming is the biggest crock of shit ever, and the biggest hoax ever pulled on the Western world.
Let's hope the hoaxers dont pull off the biggest theft the world has ever seen, while also advancing and/or implementing nearly every piece of socialist ideology.... as a solution to the warming.
p.s. Find a more attractive breastfeeder, for that avatar
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
Switch Kicker
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1218
- Joined: 29 May 2005 16:04
- Location: Albert Lea, Minnesota
I don't smoke marijuana, and I don't... "party." I don't actually spend much money on leisure items. But I guess you must be referring to what you can assume an average footbagger might do in his/her free time... I know a majority here get high... But, w/e.Jeremy wrote:Clearly from a completely selfish and personal view, we will benefit more from addressing climate change than we will from not addressing it. You may say that we're putting in effort and money that we could put into partying or getting stoned or something, but why do we do those other things, because they make us feel good.
I see point number 1. Didn't really bother reading all of number 2, was convinced enough from point number 1. I still maintain my opinion though. I agree, but nothing's going to get better till governments start making us do healthier things and whatnot.
Actually my point was nothing to with if what the average person does. I was simply saying that the things we do, we do because ultimately they make us feel good. Addressing climate change is another thing where we can put in time and effort and feel good about the results, or we can spend money and effort and short term projects, destroy the environment, and end up feeling bad. What I'm saying is that even from a selfish point of view, it makes sense to deal with climate change.
-
Switch Kicker
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1218
- Joined: 29 May 2005 16:04
- Location: Albert Lea, Minnesota
Yeah... I got that. No need to repeat yourself.Jeremy wrote:Actually my point was nothing to with if what the average person does. I was simply saying that the things we do, we do because ultimately they make us feel good. Addressing climate change is another thing where we can put in time and effort and feel good about the results, or we can spend money and effort and short term projects, destroy the environment, and end up feeling bad. What I'm saying is that even from a selfish point of view, it makes sense to deal with climate change.
-
mosher
- brutal footbag cronie
- Posts: 6177
- Joined: 22 Jan 2004 23:30
- Location: Toronto, Ontario
- Contact:
Actually you never appear to get anything, so repeating often seems necessary.Switch Kicker wrote:Yeah... I got that. No need to repeat yourself.
You're really frustrating dude, the only reason I want you to come back and post in any thread is in the hopes that you will take the time to read the things that people are saying as they tear your idiocy apart. Maybe some of their logic will sink in and you will finally lose some of your naivity and ignorance.
Tom Mosher
hate is a waste of passion!
hate is a waste of passion!