Jump to content

Global Warming Scientific Consensus: Fact or Fiction.


Cicero
 Share

Recommended Posts

Im all for the environment, but i believe it's man first, animal second.

I don't. It's not that black and white and it shouldn't be. The world would not be a much poorer place if it loses a few thousand starving Africans. There's no shortage of humans. The world would be a much poorer place if it loses the mountain gorilla.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no money in environmentalism...there is no money in Global Warming threats...what don't you understand about that?

There is, however, heaps of money in industry...and industry is not interested in making global warming changes...

And there are heaps of scientists working in industry...

common sense tells you what going on here

Yes, I too would like to know what the supposed enviromentalists and manmade climate change proponents are supposed to be 'getting out' of their stance on this subject if they are just hoodwinking people.

Can't be for profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I too would like to know what the supposed enviromentalists and manmade climate change proponents are supposed to be 'getting out' of their stance on this subject if they are just hoodwinking people.

Can't be for profit.

They're getting nothing out of it...

Because there's no profit in it, that's the thing.

Where's the profit in currently re-newable energy technology? None, otherwise every company on earth would've jumped on the bandwagon if there was money to be made out of...

We saw the electric car development get killed off...

I remember when BP introduced Petrol made from 10% ethanol, every other fuel company began a huge scare campaign about ethanol, that it fucks your car... this was just a few years ago, BP were trying new methods and technology, and Caltex, Shell all the big names scared everybody away from it...

However, 4 years later, now that petrol prices are through the roof, Caltex and Shell are BOTH offering a petrol-ethanol fuel blend...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of these posts have anything to do with politics, for fuck's sakes. :rolleyes:

In my experience (which has also been confirmed on this board) the vast majority of rabid naysayers on this subject are also rabid right wingers. The two 'generally' (though not exclusively I guess) go side by side. Rabid right wingers are also generally the most 'couldn't give a damn about the planet' folk on this earth. It's mostly rabid right wingers who come out with oh so cute colloquialisms such as "tree huggers" and "green goonies" etc etc blah blah blah. Excuse me, but it's never been properly explained what exactly the problem is with being a "tree hugger" or a "greenie". Why get so upset and annoyed at folks who actually care about the enviroment and the planet? Why look down at them as if they have the plague?? It's quite obvious that you, for example, don't have much time for 'greenies'. :D

One thing 'greenies' aren't being is selfish or being self important. Surely that is to be applauded?

Edited by Mangani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience (which has also been confirmed on this board) the vast majority of rabid naysayers on this subject are also rabid right wingers. The two 'generally' (though not exclusively I guess) go side by side. Rabid right wingers are also generally the most 'couldn't give a damn about the planet' folk on this earth. It's mostly rabid right wingers who come out with oh so cute colloquialisms such as "tree huggers" and "green goonies" etc etc blah blah blah. Excuse me, but it's never been properly explained what exactly the problem is with being a "tree hugger" or a "greenie".

Well some conservative right-wing people take exception to the fact that environmentalists will stand up to authority, they don't like that. To conservative right-wingers, challenging authority is a big no-no.

Secondly, a lot of them still have the old Victorian-era mind-set that industrialism and continual economic progress is a positive and essential sign of social and human development.

They look at history in a linear fashion and believe that because of our growing wealth, level of industrialism and production, and our technology, that we are currently the best, most superior humans in history, and that human progression must continue and it can only continue in economic/technological/wealth terms.

To them, progression means more wealth, more industry, more production, more technology...

Everything they do has to be assessed in economic terms, not humanist terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get into the "right-wing/left-wing" thing or "conservative/liberal" thing. Bill O'Riley does that and it makes him look like a nut. Those are very vague terms. I consider myself to be liberal but I don't buy the Global Warming scam. I even think people should be able to have guns.

Well by using the phrase 'Global warming scam' and gun ownership, it would suggest to me that you would be a conservative, or be sympathetic to conservative principles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't. It's not that black and white and it shouldn't be. The world would not be a much poorer place if it loses a few thousand starving Africans. There's no shortage of humans. The world would be a much poorer place if it loses the mountain gorilla.

what if the world lost a few thousand British? i bet then you wouldnt give a rats ass about the gorillas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience (which has also been confirmed on this board) the vast majority of rabid naysayers on this subject are also rabid right wingers. The two 'generally' (though not exclusively I guess) go side by side. Rabid right wingers are also generally the most 'couldn't give a damn about the planet' folk on this earth. It's mostly rabid right wingers who come out with oh so cute colloquialisms such as "tree huggers" and "green goonies" etc etc blah blah blah. Excuse me, but it's never been properly explained what exactly the problem is with being a "tree hugger" or a "greenie". Why get so upset and annoyed at folks who actually care about the enviroment and the planet? Why look down at them as if they have the plague?? It's quite obvious that you, for example, don't have much time for 'greenies'. :D

One thing 'greenies' aren't being is selfish or being self important. Surely that is to be applauded?

From my point of view the problem has been that extremists, on both sides of the political spectrum have been creating ajendas with enviromental issues. It's become good politics to be on one side or the other.I think we all know that our planet is in some serious need of change. The question becomes, what are we prepared to do. Spiking trees, is not the answer. Throwing thousands of people out of work, doesn't really appeal to me either. The issue should not have to come down to politics. I don't trust politicians and I don't think many people do. The minute it became a political issue was the minute I decided that I would contribute to the cause on my own and within my own means. Do I care about the enviroment ? You better believe it. But I also care whether or not people have jobs. If the politicians want my full cooperation, they had better get their facts in order. At the moment, I just see them lining up to take more of our hard earned cash. Ultimately, I just want the truth. Does that make me a right winger ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience (which has also been confirmed on this board) the vast majority of rabid naysayers on this subject are also rabid right wingers. The two 'generally' (though not exclusively I guess) go side by side. Rabid right wingers are also generally the most 'couldn't give a damn about the planet' folk on this earth. It's mostly rabid right wingers who come out with oh so cute colloquialisms such as "tree huggers" and "green goonies" etc etc blah blah blah. Excuse me, but it's never been properly explained what exactly the problem is with being a "tree hugger" or a "greenie". Why get so upset and annoyed at folks who actually care about the enviroment and the planet? Why look down at them as if they have the plague?? It's quite obvious that you, for example, don't have much time for 'greenies'. :D

One thing 'greenies' aren't being is selfish or being self important. Surely that is to be applauded?

Here here. :thumbsup::cheer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue should not have to come down to politics. I don't trust politicians and I don't think many people do. The minute it became a political issue was the minute I decided that I would contribute to the cause on my own and within my own means. Do I care about the enviroment ? You better believe it. But I also care whether or not people have jobs. If the politicians want my full cooperation, they had better get their facts in order. At the moment,

No you're right, the situation should not have to come down to Politicians, and frankly it should have nothing to do with politicians, or politics...

What it comes down to business and economics...

Now there's a lot of big companies out there making money hand-over-fist, but being eco-friendly costs money, and most business are interested in cutting costs, not increasing them to be kind to the environment.

So they, frankly, are not interested in doing it because their concern is profit margins and stock market returns.

So you might be thinking 'well, economy is good because people need jobs' fair enough, but that's only a short-term view

If climate change goes on unabated, it will seriously effect our economies. Once fertile areas will become dry, and water scarce, other places will be flooded, this will have a disasterous effect on food production which will mean food prices will soar...

And what happens if food prices soar? Consumer confidence will fall, and people will not want to or be able to pay for consumer goods, which of course will mean a down-turn in sales, which will result in companies cutting costs by cutting employee numbers = economic down-turn, recession, more people out of work...

Look at this this way:

We will pay the price for climate change whether we like it or not...

We either pay for it now, before it happens, and hopefully minimize its impact on the planet

OR

We will pay for it after it has happened, it will cost us dearly to adapt to the climate change, not just in damages due to violent weather, but also in ariculture and food production, uncertain environment means uncertain economies, no more spend-spend-spend if things are looking worrisome...

So you can't escape it. One way or another we will have to pay for climate change.

But like the credit-based world we live in, no one wants to pay for it now...always later.

Yes there a lot of people who argue that humans do not affect the environment and that global warming and climate change are not brought on by man, but are just naturally occuring...

These people usually advocate economy over environment...

But what they fail to understand is that our economies are as finely balanced as the environment is...and our economies are linked to the environment...Because we still feed off the environment. We still eat plants and animals. And they are intrinsincly linked to the environment, so why the hell are we any different?

So these people who believe that global warming or climate change is a scam or a lie, or that man-made climate change is a lie, what worthwhile contribution are they making to anything? What great suggestions do they have? Just forget all about it and whatever happens will happen?? Let Climate Change just take its course and we'll deal with it then?

At the very least environmentalists are trying to find workable solutions

What are the naysayers doing? Well probably too busy naysaying...

Saying things like "well we'll just cross that bridge when we get to it" well that bridge is going to be in a pretty shitty condition by then...and that's when we'll really feel the pinch...

So, call it a scam or a pack of lies or whatever, but man-made or not, if left ignored it will hit, and you can kiss goodbye to your economic goodtimes then...

Edited by Gainsbarre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gainsbarre, my argument is based on the fact that I don't believe that even the enviromental movement has a real solution to global warming. I would be more than willing to participate in a solution ( if there is one ) We've spent too many years throwing money at various problems that have confronted us and where has it gotten us. I agree, that there are many good reasons to deal with all of the man made enviromental mistakes and that if not dealt with we will be paying the price. I just don't like the way the issue is being packaged up. I think untill we get the real truths and costs laid out to us, agreement on how to tackle the problem is almost impossible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've spent too many years throwing money at various problems that have confronted us and where has it gotten us. I agree, that there are many good reasons to deal with all of the man made enviromental mistakes and that if not dealt with we will be paying the price. I just don't like the way the issue is being packaged up. I think untill we get the real truths and costs laid out to us, agreement on how to tackle the problem is almost impossible

Well we haven't really you know...we haven't been spending much money or time at solving the problem, considering we've been polluting the environment for the last 150 years...

We only started to look at environmental issues in the 1970's, and it wasn't until the 80's that things started to happen... so We've only really been environmentally aware for the last 20 years, and of course it's taken a long time for society to start to change...and environmental problems can't really be fixed over night, can they?

And waiting around for the real truths and costs to be laid out, well we may not have that much time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and you've never said it better ;)

Soemtimes you just gotta cut your losses. ;)

No use fighing amongst you all here over an issue we can't agree on. I've stated my opinions and that's enough.

(I am NOT a right winger though. I'm independent.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we haven't really you know...we haven't been spending much money or time at solving the problem, considering we've been polluting the environment for the last 150 years...

We only started to look at environmental issues in the 1970's, and it wasn't until the 80's that things started to happen... so We've only really been environmentally aware for the last 20 years, and of course it's taken a long time for society to start to change...and environmental problems can't really be fixed over night, can they?

And waiting around for the real truths and costs to be laid out, well we may not have that much time

My comment about throwing money at problems was about how government has acted in general. Not this issue in particular. As I said earlier, it's the packaged up version that I have a problem with and I don't think it's helpfull to tar everyone ( not that you did ) with the same brush, left or right, when it comes to the issue of the enviroment. Most of us are concerned and are willing to do something to help. This issue needs to be taken past the politics and handled with care. Anyway's,

I've got to head to the landfill and dispose of all my tree clippings :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, what is about the packaged up version that you have a problem with?

Tying up Global Warming to enviromental issues that we definately have contributed to. Doing so makes me feel that there is some sort of ajenda that will not necessarily lead to positive solutions that are sustainable. It smells of fear monguering to me. I can think of plenty of reasons to do the right thing without having politicians trying to sell me a bag of goods. I don't believe that the money will go into the right places once they get they're hands on it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what if the world lost a few thousand British? i bet then you wouldnt give a rats ass about the gorillas.

Whoooooooooooooosh. Went right over your head didn't it? I mentioned starving Africans because the mountain gorilla is located in er, well AFRICA so the correlation is pertinent.

Notice I didn't mention Asians or Americans??? My comment had nothing to do with race or nationality and everything to do with location.

Edited by Mangani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I even think people should be able to have guns.

Ted Kennedy would 100% disagree as would the enviro's because of the use of lead and the smoke from firearms will contribute to global warming.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many ski areas finish with record-breaking seasons

http://www.theolympian.com/704/story/455367.html

By Scott Sandsberry | Yakima Herald-Republic • Published May 21, 2008

Ski areas throughout the Pacific Northwest had such great snow in the 2007-08 winter that neither its November absence nor its road-closing, midwinter surplus could prevent a banner year for the winter-sports industry.

Several resorts - including the Summit at Snoqualmie - set new highs in skier/snowboarder visits and others, like White Pass, had seasons that ranked among their all-time best.

Snoqualmie's total of 714,000 user visits through April 30 already was more than 100,000 higher than its previous best winter. Washington's 49 Degrees North and Oregon's Mount Hood Meadows both set all-time records for skier visits, and White Pass had one of its top five years, with about 130,600 visits.

In all, Washington ski resorts will finish with about 2.1 million visits, about 50,000 off the record winter of 2001-02.

'No November'

"These numbers are remarkable, because we had no November," said Scott Kaden, president of Pacific Northwest Ski Areas Association. "Some ski areas had to wait two weeks into December to get open, and some even had to wait three or four weeks.

"In order to get a record, you almost have to be open in November; those November numbers are very hard to recoup over the course of a season," he said.

Only one Washington ski area, Mission Ridge, was able to open for Thanksgiving, and it was open for one weekend. White Pass had the same kind of suspended anticipation - opening for the Dec. 1- 2 weekend, then powering down the lifts until reopening Dec. 13.

Blocked passes

By mid-December, most resorts were open and the snow just kept coming - so much, in fact, that even the diligent snow-removal crews from the state Department of Transportation couldn't always keep up with the deluge.

"Snoqualmie had seven days of lost operation in the heart of the season, and White Pass lost four days because Highway 12 was closed," Kaden said. "There were days when Stevens, Snoqualmie Pass and White were all closed - there was no east-west traffic in the entire state of Washington, and yet these (resorts) did exceptionally well, given the circumstances."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand why people are so confused between the global warming issue and the oil shortage issue. While people may not agree on whether global warming is happening here is something no-one can deny. Within the next few decades, we will run out of oil. This has nothing to do with global warming, but it is a major problem. Governments need to be working on alternatives now, and the sooner they get their power supply switched from fossil fuel based to alternative based means the better, as they will then be insulated from the global oil fluctuations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullshit. There is wayyyy more oil than anyone will admit.

If the general public actually knew how much oil was available, they would never stand for the high prices. Say something is limited, and people will believe it's valuable.

There are oceans of oil under the surface, all over the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullshit. There is wayyyy more oil than anyone will admit.

If the general public actually knew how much oil was available, they would never stand for the high prices. Say something is limited, and people will believe it's valuable.

There are oceans of oil under the surface, all over the world.

Like DeBeers :shifty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoooooooooooooosh. Went right over your head didn't it? I mentioned starving Africans because the mountain gorilla is located in er, well AFRICA so the correlation is pertinent.

Notice I didn't mention Asians or Americans??? My comment had nothing to do with race or nationality and everything to do with location.

thank you for clarifying. i did originally read it as if you had a complete disregard for the value of an entire race of people. you could then understand my displeased response, yes? again, thanks for explaining...you have now restored my faith in people today. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...