Global warming or global bullshit?

Squagnut said:
What evidence do you have for this? Who has manipulated and exaggerated figures?
Click to expand...
I have given examples earlier here's others.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-Santer.htm

I dont know if its obvious to you but there are clearly two agendas in this issue. One is to stop/reduce carbon emissions, which I have no problem with.
The other is to creep through a system of global governance through the movement of money under the pretext of 'saving the earth'. (the leaders apparently agreed to a tax on financial transactions at Copenhagen, so WTF has that got to do with greenhouse gases?)
You have to admit, the Copenhagen summit will do nothing in practise to seriously reduce climate emissions but yet we are always subjected to shock tactics to make us fall in line....same with Iraq, same with Afghanistan, same with swine flu - all examples of threats that have been exaggerated to make us accept the proposed 'solution'. Sure, some people may need to be smacked in the face with an issue to make them listen but where does it stop? The trust between the people and their leaders is eroding for good reason.

I'm bowing out of this now. I hate politics! grr
 
Technognome said:
Just a note but carbon taxes are doomed to failure.

Totally doomed.

When have taxes ever controlled consumption Fuel duty? Cigarett/alcahol tax? - do they bollocks control consumption. Never have never will.

The ONLY solution is rationing. End of. This is the only way to stop the feckless rich feckwits (ie westerners) from consuming as much as they can afford, which is way more than they need. If you put fuel tax up wages rise to accomodate.

Rationing is fair - people who are against rationing are greedy fucks who want more than their fair share.
Click to expand...

Yeah basically agree with you - but although we are really close to a time when we have to do something or it is too late, people just wouldn't accept that I think. I think boom bust unchained capitalism and being green pretty much don't work at all well but it would be too complex to resort the system in time probably. Ahhh! It's terrifying!
 
The way I see it is that humanity is as natural a bi-product of this planet and the universe as any plant, animal, fish or micro-organism. Our industriliasation, our infrastructure, our technology, all things that we attribute this great crisis to and all things that arose from the natural nature of human beings, creatures as native and natural to this planet as anything else. So even if we do perish on this planet, after it revolts against us and we perish in the oily sludge we made for ourselves, take heart in the thought that our extinction was as natural as the extinction of any other plant, animal, fish or micro-organism. We did nothing wrong, nor could we have, we were just another reiteration of the wonderful potential for life that this planet harbours and we were always destined for extinction... Like the dodo :P

LOL I dunno it's 3:47 and I can't sleep.
 
You're right, MDMorgan, but just because a thing is natural doesn't mean it's desireable. Bubonic plague and smallpox are natural too, but I don't want 'em.
 
@Squagnut: You should read La Plague by Albert Camus.

Don't think anyone does want the plague or smallpox (unless there is a serious massochist living amongst us :P). I'm not saying we should ignore our human nature, rather that when considering things ethically we should not adopt the concept of the 'right' course of action as opposed to the 'wrong' course of action... There is only the 'natural' course and we are bound to take it no matter what we do... I still don't think I'm making sense here. Feel like I'm just digging myself a hole. :P
 
a big deep hole for humanity to commit suicide in.

we are part of nature

but i.m.o. greed, power and the amoral corporate shareholder have supplanted the species survival instinct.

why should morality be ignored ?

I'd rather believe something positive might happen/should happen rather than taking a nihilistic attitude.
 
When greed, power and establishment superceded the survival instinct was that not TOO a part of the natural order? How then did these things occur if not as a natural part of our existance? Do we attribute them to some unkown, evil force?
What is morality? What you say is good or evil? What I say is good or evil? The church? the government? If not for the totally amoral attitude of 60's america where we would we be culturally?
The problem I have is that while what I believe to be a positive thing, may be someone else's idea of a nightmare, or vice-versa. We can use words like morality but in the end good and evil differs with each person's own perspective. How can we say that there even exists a moral right and wrong with that in mind? (unless we attribute it to a God or some other belief-based construct)

Once again I feel myself digging my hole deeper and deeper and deeper :P
 
@MDM: your argument is a bit of an academic thought exercise anyway, because if we go extinct then there will be nobody left to be philosophical about it.

A very basic natural trait is the survival instinct, and we humans have shown that we can be quite ingenious when it comes to preserving our species.

The question is, are we capable of transcending the normal processes of natural selection by anticipating them, and putting measures in place which enable us to take a greater control of our own destiny? I think that we can, it is exactly the kind of problem solving which we are getting very good at as a species. The challenge is huge, certainly - but then so is our creative resourcefulness as a species.

Are we mice, or men? :Wink3:

(notwithstanding the obvious Douglas Adams connotation in that question)
 
I would liken humanity at the moment to a teenager of the species. Sure, it's natural to he fucked up as a teenager, and depressed etc, and it's very natural for teenagers to commit suicide, or die in crashes racing cars, or whatever, and you can certainly argue that there is no right or wrong in that.

But it's also natural to grow up and take responsibility for your own life and destiny, and to ensure the continuity of the species. And to me, the growing awareness of the problems we face as a species is just humanity beginning to grow up, I suppose.
 
MadDogMorgan said:
When greed, power and establishment superceded the survival instinct was that not TOO a part of the natural order? How then did these things occur if not as a natural part of our existance? Do we attribute them to some unkown, evil force?
What is morality? What you say is good or evil? What I say is good or evil? The church? the government? If not for the totally amoral attitude of 60's america where we would we be culturally?
The problem I have is that while what I believe to be a positive thing, may be someone else's idea of a nightmare, or vice-versa. We can use words like morality but in the end good and evil differs with each person's own perspective. How can we say that there even exists a moral right and wrong with that in mind? (unless we attribute it to a God or some other belief-based construct)

Once again I feel myself digging my hole deeper and deeper and deeper :P
Click to expand...

If some more illumination at the bottom of that hole would help, there are plenty of people who turn climate issues into a moral crusade, but really it's just about whether or not humans want to live on a planet with a climate compatible with civilisation. If we do then we need to change how we do things. So, while there's a moral side to it, guilt-tripping people is probably less useful than educating them - in the first place, educating them a little on the mechanisms of climate change. I was pretty sceptical until I learned about why climate scientists say why they think what they do. Oh yeh - and the nay-sayers tend to smell of conspiracy-theorist rather than of scientist.
 
Squagnut said:
So, while there's a moral side to it, guilt-tripping people is probably less useful than educating them - in the first place, educating them a little on the mechanisms of climate change.
Click to expand...

To be honest I would probably go one step further and say that all we can realistically do is to try to provoke discussion, to challenge people's perception of the issue and perhaps their complacency.

Both preaching the moral aspects of environmentalism and presuming to educate the ignorant can be counter-productive, although of course presenting the arguments in both of these areas is an essential part of the debate.

Once people have been provoked into discussion, they will quite often come to the moral and scientific arguments of their own accord, in their own time and in their own way. But it's true that getting people to the questioning stage can be the most difficult and traumatic task of all.
 
MadDogMorgan said:
@Squagnut: You should read La Plague by Albert Camus.
Click to expand...
It's not called ''La Plague'' by the way. It's called ''La Peste'' in French or ''The Plague'' in English.

Apparently since ''climategate'' only 75% of british public believe climate change is caused by us (before climate gate it was in the 80s). Even as someone with a background in the subject I sometimes find myself being swayed by climate change deniers... it's crazy how people can make doubt out of so little and that though there is definately some maliciousness on the part of some people accusing stuff, most ''deniers'' just have a poor grasp of how shit actually works and just seem more likely to side with climate nutters than with warmists.
 
I think the 'deniers' should be seen to have had their say. Nothing will give the sceptics' case as much of a boost as the perception that they are being censored.
 
yeah that's true. If climategate proves anything though it's how easy it is for legitmiate things to be spun into MASSIVE EVIL CONSPIRACIES - especially that old ''hide the decline'' and ''trick'' quotes. People see those and are convinced that the AGW people are lying, but if you look into it at all it's very clear that it's just standard practice. It's wierd how people will ignore every explanation you pass to them about something only to grab on some other nonsense that on the surface appears to support their denial. The main problem seems to be that people don't get science and will agree with whatever supports their pre-conceived view. (prob been reading too many climate/skeptic blogs!)
 
SugarPixie said:
The main problem seems to be that people don't get science and will agree with whatever supports their pre-conceived view. (prob been reading too many climate/skeptic blogs!)
Click to expand...

:ilol:

Very true. Science is hard and you need to stretch your brain a bit to understand it. And it's much easier to formulate your views on climate change to fit your lifestyle rather than the other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top