Global Warming not looking good

polaris_x

catefrances wrote:

weather and climate arent the same thing... you know that right??

they are not the same thing but they are related to each other ... what is your point?

again - please, just learn about the basic science of climate change ... it shouldn't take you but 20 mins or so and you will no longer be posting things that are irrelevant ...

yahamita

http://www.theoryoflivevolution.com/files/beware.pdf
http://www.theoryoflivevolution.com/lists.html

Reading a great book right now...found this tidbit of info..

Beware the environmental movement, beware the environmental
movement
Let’s clarify a few things before anybody starts with the usual I’m for “Big Oil” or some
kind of anti-environment rich white male capitalist rant or whatever the latest catch
phrase of the (ROCKEFELLER funded) fringe eco wacko left is.
A. I am not “anti-environment”. There are legitimate environmental problems like solid
waste disposal, sewage and water treatment and local air pollution issues like LA’s
recurring smog problems. Wetlands serve important environmental functions but now,
like everything else with the eco wacko movement, it has gone too far and protecting
them has become a blank check for total control of private property. Actually, my
collegiate background is civil engineering with an environmental concentration. In fact,
the solution to all of today’s real environmental problems can be solved with things like
chemistry, microbiology, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, etc. etc. and the resultant
technologies of a free, capitalistic society. For example, we invented nuclear power in
this country. In one case in Arizona three nuclear plants for cooling water are using
purified wastewater from nearby sewage treatment plants. By the way, seven more
nuclear power plants were due to come on line there but thanks to the eco wacko kooks
and our “useless officials” in Congress, “hasta la vista baby” to quote Republican turned
green loon Governor Arnold of the loon state of California. Speaking of California,
wastewater treatment plants there now can produce potable quality water as a discharge.
Hmmm. We can go to Africa and take their CFCs but not build water treatment plants. I
can go on but you get the point. Now when one reads the books of the “New” Age
Mother Earth Gaia wackos and associated (and very religious) “New” Age loons a few
things become abundantly clear as thoroughly documented in “The THEorY of
LIVEvolution” and summarized here:
1. The eco wackos regard pesky things like chemistry, physics and other
sciences of the devout Christian Isaac Newton as “mechanistic” and
“profane”. Alchemy, the forerunner of real chemistry, is purely metaphysical
in nature and the “Sacred Science” according to these (very religious) fools.
2. In order to be valid a scientific THEORY must be verifiable and backed by
DATA. This holds for ALL branches of science. Personally, I have studied
copious models in the fields of hydrology and water pollution. These models
need to be field tested (i.e., reality verified) before being released for general
consumption by SCIENTISTS and ENGINEERS and even then they are only
as good as the operator, his or her data collection, etc, etc. Yet the “models”
predicting “Global Warming” need no such verification and in fact the
SCIENTIFIC data CONTRADICTS “Global Warming” (suddenly “Climate
Change”). The goofballs like Hollywood elites and a certain (very
financially) green private jet flying limo driving hypocrite not to mention the
(Banksta owned) mainstream snews have exempted themselves from this
INCONVENIENT TRUTH. This fiasco is thoroughly documented in “The
THEorY of LIVEvolution” that itself has somehow escaped the need to
produce even one iota of verification or DATA like say an evolutionary
transitional fossil...
3. As documented in “The THEorY of LIVEvolution” the real goal of the kook
fringe (and ROCKEFELLER funded) eco wacko movement is POPULATION
CONTROL. Is this “crazy”? There are millions of dead innocent Africans
that speak otherwise from the other side of the grave. For example, the ozone
hole “scare” scam disallowed cheap and efficient refrigeration of life saving
medicines, the Global Warming (Climate Change?) “scare” scam in addition
to wasting billions of dollars and endless scientific minds to solve a nonexistent
problem is literally starving people to death worldwide with this
ethanol hoax. The pesticide DDT was also banned by the eco wacko kooks
and now mosquitoes can live and people die of malaria. That’s okay, we all
come from the same “Earth Mother” according to these loons not mention the
THEorY of LIVEvolution fools who would claim that they probably deserved
it due to some past life bad karma…
4. Finally, more shame (if that’s possible) to the disgraceful Catholic Church and
other Social Gospel fools for joining in with this sham. Now if mankind can
destroy himself with “global warming” aren’t we really calling God, the real
One, an idiot since we are claiming one of His creations can destroy another?
Of course there’s the prospect of nuclear war but Mother Earth would recover
over time. Besides, before that God would need to intervene to save us from
ourselves unless we think the all too humanistic (ROCKEFELLER founded)
UN-dead is up to the task….
B. BEWARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT, BEWARE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT to paraphrase Anti-Commandment number 10 of the
Georgia Guidestones “…leave room for nature, leave room for nature”. According to the
UN-dead “global warming” is now a “security issue” as in martial law issue. Hmmm. In
addition to the aforementioned beyond evil conclusions, the leader of the UN-dead
associated and eco wacko laden “Green Cross” is none other than ex “Evil Empire”,
devout Communist and ex KGB leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Now when Gorby here
converses with current Russian, very proud, Communist (and ex-KGB chief) Russian
leader Vladmir Putin do you think they are remorsefully discussing the real
environmental debacle of Chernobyl or the Western economy weakening eco wacko
movement as they bide their time to bring back “Mother Russia” not to mention new
alliances with environmentally friendly Iran (we will destroy Israel), Libya, Syria and the
other lunatics from the “religion of peace”?
In a nutshell, no pun intended, we have hiding beneath the environmental
movement the makings of the One World Control System as justified by the global
warming (climate change?) “Crisis” in addition to the makings of the Battle of Gog and
Magog (who?) that some say IS the Battle of Armageddon. Both happen to show up in
the Book of Revelation and now both hide beneath the cover of the radical environmental
movement.
Finally, can I get some love for poor David Rockefeller? His Banksta forerunners
knew they were playing with fire by unloosening the likes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and the
other champions of the Population Control/Mother Earth saving types. I know David
cares very much for our environment as documented in “The THEorY of LIVEvolution”
and his quotes about Communist China’s contributions to the Mother Earth saving
population control endeavor. But this Vladmir Putin may not roll over and play “nice”
like say Joe Stalin or Nikita Khrushchev. Now it seems Davie (and his buddies like Hank
Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Ted Turner) may have a real problem on his hands
trying to control the current crop of Mother Russia’s leaders not to mention the “religion
of peace” types we will die for Allah nut-cases…
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, silly me. How can I forget the very (financially) green Al
Gore…eco wacko tool of the Bankstas. If there’s any doubt that the Bankstas own
“both” sides of the “Presidential” selection scam look no further than this hypocrite
charlatan. The “imbecile majority” actually thought things would be different had he
won in 2000. Fine. So instead of Skull and Bones Bush nailing us with the “Federal”
“Reserve” Banksta approach this clown would have nailed us with the pro-eco wacko
Banksta approach. (Hint: Both are happening anyway). His “global warming” (climate
change?) and ozone hole scam are covered thoroughly in “The THEorY of
LIVEvolution” but one fact should be stressed here in case anyone thinks I’m the crazy
one for calling the eco wackos a bunch of Earth spirit worshipping loons. Al (I buy
carbon credits from my own carbon credits company) Gore refused to take this “Personal
Ethics Energy Pledge” in front of the United States Senate Public Works Committee on
March 21, 2007:
As a believer:
That human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical and spiritual
issue affecting our survival;
That home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
That reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower
greenhouse gas emissions; and
That leaders on moral issues should lead by example;
I pledge to consume no more energy for my use in my residence than the
average American household by March 21, 2008
(emphasis mine)
Hmmm. Al “the debate is over” Gore probably didn’t take this pledge because he really
does believe that global warming should stand the test of scientific scrutiny with pesky
things like data confirmation of “global warming” (climate change?) theories and not be
considered some kind of “spiritual” issue like say the other Gaia earth spirit weirdoes.
On the other hand maybe he really doesn’t want to give up that private jet or house that
uses around 20 times the energy of your typical evil limited resource depleting American
household while he pays for the whole charade by buying “carbon credits” from a
company he has an ownership interest in...
Ummm….

polaris_x

ok ... the guy is a conspiracy theorist ... which doesn't necessarily mean that he is wrong ... but it's hard to address anything because he doesn't actually provide anything to rebuke ... he just keeps calling people eco-wackos ... i mean if there is anyone who shouldn't be marginalizing a group - it's someone who considers himself a conspiracy theorist ... i can equally write incoherent sentences about him as a wacko and not say anything as well ...

i wouldn't call this info as i would the ramblings of one man ... i do hope the book has more subtance ...

VINNY GOOMBA

Right off, I will say that I am skeptical about anyone having the ability to determine man's specific impact on climate given the millions of factors at play. I also think that humanity gives itself far too much credit in terms of being both the problem and solution-- man seems to think it can successfully control systems which it really can't, from environment to economies. But--

I am all for efforts like 350.org, and completely against legislation like Cap and Trade as a means to a cleaner healthier planet. I think everyone SHOULD beware massive government actions to fix any problems dealing with global warming / climate change, as their "solutions" will inevitably give power to special interests who only pose to care about the problem while finding a way to profit at the expense of the taxpayer. If people want to use the power of their elected officials, they should push to stop subsidizing oil and corn (ethanol), and force this industry to compete on a level playing field with the less-connected green technology out there. When the cost of cleaner and greener technology is even with that of fossil fuels, the incentive to use fossil fuels will diminish greatly, and so will emissions.

Environmentalists should focus on changing minds through persuasion, not force. The same could be said for every religious group out there who cares about spreading their message.

eyedclaar

People are still doubting man's impact. Ok, quick fact. In a 50 year span of time (a blink of time) we removed 90% of the large fish/mammals from the ocean. The heads of entire ecosystems gone just like that. 50 years! Yeah, it's tough to measure alright.

polaris_x

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Right off, I will say that I am skeptical about anyone having the ability to determine man's specific impact on climate given the millions of factors at play. I also think that humanity gives itself far too much credit in terms of being both the problem and solution-- man seems to think it can successfully control systems which it really can't, from environment to economies. But--

I am all for efforts like 350.org, and completely against legislation like Cap and Trade as a means to a cleaner healthier planet. I think everyone SHOULD beware massive government actions to fix any problems dealing with global warming / climate change, as their "solutions" will inevitably give power to special interests who only pose to care about the problem while finding a way to profit at the expense of the taxpayer. If people want to use the power of their elected officials, they should push to stop subsidizing oil and corn (ethanol), and force this industry to compete on a level playing field with the less-connected green technology out there. When the cost of cleaner and greener technology is even with that of fossil fuels, the incentive to use fossil fuels will diminish greatly, and so will emissions.

Environmentalists should focus on changing minds through persuasion, not force. The same could be said for every religious group out there who cares about spreading their message.

the majority of environmentalists are not in favour of cap and trade ... in fact, you libertarian types will probably find friendly ears more often than not ... unfortunately, many of you guys have aligned yourselves with the conspiracy theorists who think us environmentalists are some secret group really aiming to put more power into the hands of the elite which is about as far from the truth ...

your point on fossil fuel subsidies is spot on

and if you would truly like to figure out man's ability to control climate ... simply walk into a greenhouse on a sunny day in late fall ...

yahamita

polaris_x wrote:

ok ... the guy is a conspiracy theorist ... which doesn't necessarily mean that he is wrong ... but it's hard to address anything because he doesn't actually provide anything to rebuke ... he just keeps calling people eco-wackos ... i mean if there is anyone who shouldn't be marginalizing a group - it's someone who considers himself a conspiracy theorist ... i can equally write incoherent sentences about him as a wacko and not say anything as well ...

i wouldn't call this info as i would the ramblings of one man ... i do hope the book has more subtance ...

Its actually a facinating book. Rob is a really big Italian, Tony Soprano type from Jersey who wrote the book, so that would explain some of the language and how he words things. I wanted to find a better part of the book to add as the link, but I didn't have time to find what I was looking for. But here is a link to the book. It pretty much covers the Bilderbergs, Global Warming, The AIDS virus, swine flu, WHO, The (Non) Federal Reserve and so forth..you can download for $5. Well worth the read, and he does have all sorts of references to back up his research.
http://www.theoryoflivevolution.com/bookorder.html

catefrances

eyedclaar wrote:

People are still doubting man's impact. Ok, quick fact. In a 50 year span of time (a blink of time) we removed 90% of the large fish/mammals from the ocean. The heads of entire ecosystems gone just like that. 50 years! Yeah, it's tough to measure alright.

that would be KNOWN species right? cause you know i keep hearing we discover new species every day. so 90% of the unknown isnt too absolute if you ask me. and even if youre not asking me im saying it anyway. :P

catefrances

polaris_x wrote:

catefrances wrote:

weather and climate arent the same thing... you know that right??

they are not the same thing but they are related to each other ... what is your point?

again - please, just learn about the basic science of climate change ... it shouldn't take you but 20 mins or so and you will no longer be posting things that are irrelevant ...

i know what climate change is. ive never denied the earth is warming and ive stated my reasons.... perhaps you missed that... i am all for changing our behaviours as ive said before. but what i question is the impact mankind has on global warming. is it neglible? it is massive? do we know absolutely? or are we just trying to scare the people into changing their behaviours... cause you know that ever works.

dont point, for example, to the massive flooding of one of the worlds major rivers as an indicator when this is hardly the first time it has happened.

truth is we dont know how the earth works in the long run cause we havent been around long enough to note it. sure we can be conjectural using all the data we have.. but that data is incomplete cause there are so many years before. we search for patterns to make sense of things. i get that. its natural for humankind to do that.

again i am not denying global warming... im just willing to chill a bit and not get a massive blinded bug up my arse about it.

oh and my point was.. just that.

catefrances

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

... I also think that humanity gives itself far too much credit in terms of being both the problem and solution-- man seems to think it can successfully control systems which it really can't, from environment to economies. But--...

nature of the beast.

polaris_x

catefrances wrote:

i know what climate change is. ive never denied the earth is warming and ive stated my reasons.... perhaps you missed that... i am all for changing our behaviours as ive said before. but what i question is the impact mankind has on global warming. is it neglible? it is massive? do we know absolutely? or are we just trying to scare the people into changing their behaviours... cause you know that ever works.

dont point, for example, to the massive flooding of one of the worlds major rivers as an indicator when this is hardly the first time it has happened.

truth is we dont know how the earth works in the long run cause we havent been around long enough to note it. sure we can be conjectural using all the data we have.. but that data is incomplete cause there are so many years before. we search for patterns to make sense of things. i get that. its natural for humankind to do that.

again i am not denying global warming... im just willing to chill a bit and not get a massive blinded bug up my arse about it.

oh and my point was.. just that.

sorry ... again - i respectfully am telling you that you don't understand the science behind climate change ... please read up on it ... you can't possibly understand it if you are questioning the things you are ...

and please - i beg of you to stop using the world/earth is so old reasoning ... it's flawed beyond belief and been addressed by the experts ...

if anything should tell you that climate change is real - all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...

also - i resent the notion that this is some scare tactic ... what are we trying to manipulate people into doing? ... being more sustainable? ... i didn't know that was so evil? ... it's not like we are trying to make people go to war or buy drugs they don't need ... and the FACT is - we aren't doing anything ...

and lastly - the proof of climate change is already evident ... even if you don't want to believe the disasters are related to it ... sea ice is disappearing faster than ever .. which has huge implications for northern people and wildlife ... i mean, i could list a thousand things but if you're simply going to say that the world is old ... then why bother i suppose ...

catefrances

polaris_x wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i know what climate change is. ive never denied the earth is warming and ive stated my reasons.... perhaps you missed that... i am all for changing our behaviours as ive said before. but what i question is the impact mankind has on global warming. is it neglible? it is massive? do we know absolutely? or are we just trying to scare the people into changing their behaviours... cause you know that ever works.

dont point, for example, to the massive flooding of one of the worlds major rivers as an indicator when this is hardly the first time it has happened.

truth is we dont know how the earth works in the long run cause we havent been around long enough to note it. sure we can be conjectural using all the data we have.. but that data is incomplete cause there are so many years before. we search for patterns to make sense of things. i get that. its natural for humankind to do that.

again i am not denying global warming... im just willing to chill a bit and not get a massive blinded bug up my arse about it.

oh and my point was.. just that.

sorry ... again - i respectfully am telling you that you don't understand the science behind climate change ... please read up on it ... you can't possibly understand it if you are questioning the things you are ...

and please - i beg of you to stop using the world/earth is so old reasoning ... it's flawed beyond belief and been addressed by the experts ...

if anything should tell you that climate change is real - all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...

also - i resent the notion that this is some scare tactic ... what are we trying to manipulate people into doing? ... being more sustainable? ... i didn't know that was so evil? ... it's not like we are trying to make people go to war or buy drugs they don't need ... and the FACT is - we aren't doing anything ...

and lastly - the proof of climate change is already evident ... even if you don't want to believe the disasters are related to it ... sea ice is disappearing faster than ever .. which has huge implications for northern people and wildlife ... i mean, i could list a thousand things but if you're simply going to say that the world is old ... then why bother i suppose ...

i really dont care what you resent polaris. if the thought that the freakout around climate change is not a scare tactic to you then theres nothing i can say. nd ive never said it was. what i said was if you scare the people they will shut down.

i tend to take all on board and then half it. i stop and look and see that mankind will not kill the earth but will, worse case scenario, kill its habitability for mankind. but then i see the last major climate change.. the ice age.. and see that mankind managed to adapt. sure mankind didnt have the capabilities back then as they do now for destruction.. and absoutely ive no idea how mankind will cope with what is coming.. even though ive no idea what that exactly is coming. but i also have no idea by how much the temperature of the earth will rise. but then again temperature isnt a blanket thing is it?? even within the same country different climates sit side by side. the tropical rainforest of far north queensland is vastly different from the dry desert interior of northern south australia.


all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...

are you kidding me with this??? the UN tends to justify their own existence by any means necessary. and never have i said we shouldnt change our behaviour. but wont i wont do is become an environmental fundamentalist. its just not who i am.. but that doesnt mean im ignorant of what were doing and what needs to done. im just of the opinion that its bigger than mankind.`and i agree polaris.. were not doing anything to combat what were doing to the planet. were talking talking talking seemingly hoping itl resolve itself. its kinds like the whole peace thing. we crap on about it but we still go to war for hatever reasons and we justify our actions as being good for.. whatever ... when in fact what we do isnt good for anyone... least of all the people.

polaris_x

catefrances wrote:

i really dont care what you resent polaris. if the thought that the freakout around climate change is not a scare tactic to you then theres nothing i can say. nd ive never said it was. what i said was if you scare the people they will shut down.

i tend to take all on board and then half it. i stop and look and see that mankind will not kill the earth but will, worse case scenario, kill its habitability for mankind. but then i see the last major climate change.. the ice age.. and see that mankind managed to adapt. sure mankind didnt have the capabilities back then as they do now for destruction.. and absoutely ive no idea how mankind will cope with what is coming.. even though ive no idea what that exactly is coming. but i also have no idea by how much the temperature of the earth will rise. but then again temperature isnt a blanket thing is it?? even within the same country different climates sit side by side. the tropical rainforest of far north queensland is vastly different from the dry desert interior of northern south australia.


all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...

are you kidding me with this??? the UN tends to justify their own existence by any means necessary. and never have i said we shouldnt change our behaviour. but wont i wont do is become an environmental fundamentalist. its just not who i am.. but that doesnt mean im ignorant of what were doing and what needs to done. im just of the opinion that its bigger than mankind.`and i agree polaris.. were not doing anything to combat what were doing to the planet. were talking talking talking seemingly hoping itl resolve itself. its kinds like the whole peace thing. we crap on about it but we still go to war for hatever reasons and we justify our actions as being good for.. whatever ... when in fact what we do isnt good for anyone... least of all the people.

the last ice age happened over 10,000 years ago ... what kind of adaptaption are you referring to? ... how many people were around before and after that ice age?

as for the UN - i suppose i should ignore all their reports on human rights abuses in Israel then ... cuz, they are just justifying their own existence ...

fair enough on not changing because of who you are ... you should have simply said that instead of trying to say things that have been addressed by the scientific community ...

you are right on one point ... it is bigger than mankind - in so much as we are destroying species and our biodiversity daily ... i'm sorry to say - the situation is dire ... people are dying and suffering because of the consequences of climate change - unfortunately, for those of us in western nations ... most of those people are in poorer developed countries and our concern for them pales ...

wolfamongwolves

Stepping away from the natural vs. anthropomorphic argument for a second, and back to the simplistic judgements that cold weather gives the lie to global warming. This is from today's Irish Times:

Chill wind: winters to get colder
Low solar activity is expected to cause the winter jet stream to bring bitterly cold Arctic air, writes DICK AHLSTROM

GLOBAL CLIMATE is warming, with 2010 expected to go down as yet another record year. You can count on our winters being colder than usual, however, at least for the next few years.

“There is a difference between global climate and regional climate, and there is a very peculiar thing we are finding about the European climate,” says Prof Mike Lockwood of the University of Southampton and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. Colder winters are expected because at the moment solar activity is very low.

Solar activity, in this case, does not mean direct heat or light from the sun but the energy emitted from the solar surface by sunspots. “What we are finding is that Europe and western Asia are particularly prone to solar influences, especially in winter,” Lockwood says. “What we are seeing is much cooler winters if solar activity is low.”

Last winter was particularly cold here and on the Continent, and low-temperature records were set.

Lockwood, who is Southampton’s professor of space and climate physics in the school of mathematical and physical sciences, believes we will see more of the same this winter. Climate change naysayers argue that temperature changes come down to a weakening or strengthening sun, but in fact Eurasia’s colder winters will be triggered by the jet stream, Lockwood explains. It is a phenomenon known as “set stream blocking”.
Sometimes the normal winter flow of the high-altitude jet stream “gets kinked into a reverse S-shape”, says Lockwood. “What happens in a blocking event is the normal flow changes, the warm westerlies get disrupted and we get cold Arctic air from the north and east.”

This in turn changes the weather we see on the ground. “Although the jet stream is very high up it is known to direct weather patterns further down.”

The thing that gets the jet stream into a winter twist is none other than the sun, but only when it is not very active.

“There is no doubt that the frequency of those blocking events in winter is higher when solar activity is low,” says Lockwood. “What was a slight surprise is that the sun was changing the jet stream, but only when the jet stream has travelled across the Atlantic and begins hitting land over Europe.”

Lockwood believes that the phenomenon may have been responsible for the “Little Ice Age” in Europe, a time between about 1650 and 1700 when people skated on the frozen Thames. During that time astronomers noted that there were no sunspots for 50 years, and Europe became extra cold.

Scientists have directly monitored solar activity continuously throughout the space age, giving us more than 40 years of data and a chance to assess the links between activity and temperatures, says Lockwood. Activity can also be inferred by other methods, and when examined over time it shows that recent years have seen very high activity.

“We find the sun typically goes through 400-year to 500-year solar minimums and maximums. This was one of the 24 grand maximums in the past 9,000 years,” he says, putting the recent solar levels in the top 15 per cent.

All of this is expected to change. Activity has rolled back and is expected to decline still further. “We have returned to the lowest solar-activity conditions since the 1920s,” Lockwood says. “I would anticipate more cold winters in Europe. This is despite and on top of a gradually warming world.”

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

sorry ... again - i respectfully am telling you that you don't understand the science behind climate change ... please read up on it ... you can't possibly understand it if you are questioning the things you are ...

and please - i beg of you to stop using the world/earth is so old reasoning ... it's flawed beyond belief and been addressed by the experts ...

if anything should tell you that climate change is real - all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...

also - i resent the notion that this is some scare tactic ... what are we trying to manipulate people into doing? ... being more sustainable? ... i didn't know that was so evil? ... it's not like we are trying to make people go to war or buy drugs they don't need ... and the FACT is - we aren't doing anything ...

and lastly - the proof of climate change is already evident ... even if you don't want to believe the disasters are related to it ... sea ice is disappearing faster than ever .. which has huge implications for northern people and wildlife ... i mean, i could list a thousand things but if you're simply going to say that the world is old ... then why bother i suppose ...

Hey polaris...what happened to your ability to talk about this subject? I'd say an attitude like that is likely to turn more people away then open their minds.

And scare tactics can be used for anything...in order to get people to do what you want, live how you want them to live...so I wouldn't dismiss it outright just because you not taking people to war. It's what the religious right uses to keep others from getting equal rights after all, and that's not a war nor does it really benefit them in any tangible way.

And I wouldn't be using the UN to prove anything.

catefrances

polaris_x wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i really dont care what you resent polaris. if the thought that the freakout around climate change is not a scare tactic to you then theres nothing i can say. nd ive never said it was. what i said was if you scare the people they will shut down.

i tend to take all on board and then half it. i stop and look and see that mankind will not kill the earth but will, worse case scenario, kill its habitability for mankind. but then i see the last major climate change.. the ice age.. and see that mankind managed to adapt. sure mankind didnt have the capabilities back then as they do now for destruction.. and absoutely ive no idea how mankind will cope with what is coming.. even though ive no idea what that exactly is coming. but i also have no idea by how much the temperature of the earth will rise. but then again temperature isnt a blanket thing is it?? even within the same country different climates sit side by side. the tropical rainforest of far north queensland is vastly different from the dry desert interior of northern south australia.


all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...

are you kidding me with this??? the UN tends to justify their own existence by any means necessary. and never have i said we shouldnt change our behaviour. but wont i wont do is become an environmental fundamentalist. its just not who i am.. but that doesnt mean im ignorant of what were doing and what needs to done. im just of the opinion that its bigger than mankind.`and i agree polaris.. were not doing anything to combat what were doing to the planet. were talking talking talking seemingly hoping itl resolve itself. its kinds like the whole peace thing. we crap on about it but we still go to war for hatever reasons and we justify our actions as being good for.. whatever ... when in fact what we do isnt good for anyone... least of all the people.

the last ice age happened over 10,000 years ago ... what kind of adaptaption are you referring to? ... how many people were around before and after that ice age?

as for the UN - i suppose i should ignore all their reports on human rights abuses in Israel then ... cuz, they are just justifying their own existence ...

fair enough on not changing because of who you are ... you should have simply said that instead of trying to say things that have been addressed by the scientific community ...

you are right on one point ... it is bigger than mankind - in so much as we are destroying species and our biodiversity daily ... i'm sorry to say - the situation is dire ... people are dying and suffering because of the consequences of climate change - unfortunately, for those of us in western nations ... most of those people are in poorer developed countries and our concern for them pales ...

i didnt say i wouldnt change because of who i am.. what i said was i wasnt going to become an environmental fundamentalist.

as to how many people were around before and during the last ice age(which youll rmember were still coming out of) i have no idea but what i do know is mankind as a species didnt disappear.. so they clearly adapted. and what adaptation am i talking about??? the ability to survive in a changing climate.

polaris_x

catefrances wrote:

i didnt say i wouldnt change because of who i am.. what i said was i wasnt going to become an environmental fundamentalist.

as to how many people were around before and during the last ice age(which youll rmember were still coming out of) i have no idea but what i do know is mankind as a species didnt disappear.. so they clearly adapted. and what adaptation am i talking about??? the ability to survive in a changing climate.

but how many people died in the ice age? ... is humanity's (at least some portion of it) survival the only thing that matters at this point ... i mean - yeah ... mankind will survive a lot of shit ... heck ... we had some people survive being nuked ... but the reality is that because of climate change - many will die and suffer ...

and would you like to clarify your position on the UN?

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

Hey polaris...what happened to your ability to talk about this subject? I'd say an attitude like that is likely to turn more people away then open their minds.

And scare tactics can be used for anything...in order to get people to do what you want, live how you want them to live...so I wouldn't dismiss it outright just because you not taking people to war. It's what the religious right uses to keep others from getting equal rights after all, and that's not a war nor does it really benefit them in any tangible way.

And I wouldn't be using the UN to prove anything.

it's quite possible ... but this is me staying on point ... it's been my assertation throughout this thread that if people read up on what the basic principles of climate change are - we wouldn't be having this discussion ... if one is going to continually reiterate a point that has been addressed by numerous experts - my focus is then to continue to hammer that point ...

scare tactics are only of concern if the consequence being discussed is false ... such as iraq threat to the world ... gay people are sinners ... etc.. what part about the consequences of climate change are false?

and lastly - please provide me any publication by the UN that is false ... it may be dysfunctional but i don't know of any report it publishes as being full of lies or manipulation ... also - my point there was also to indicate that if every single country agrees that climate change is a problem and that they feel compelled to meet about it ... wouldn't it validate it? ... i mean what benefit is there for these countries to meet on a subject that has no foundation?

catefrances

polaris_x wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i didnt say i wouldnt change because of who i am.. what i said was i wasnt going to become an environmental fundamentalist.

as to how many people were around before and during the last ice age(which youll rmember were still coming out of) i have no idea but what i do know is mankind as a species didnt disappear.. so they clearly adapted. and what adaptation am i talking about??? the ability to survive in a changing climate.

but how many people died in the ice age? ... is humanity's (at least some portion of it) survival the only thing that matters at this point ... i mean - yeah ... mankind will survive a lot of shit ... heck ... we had some people survive being nuked ... but the reality is that because of climate change - many will die and suffer ...

and would you like to clarify your position on the UN?

absolutely many will die.. as they always have. i doubt anything we do as a species will stop or even curb that. my contention re: population and sustainability is that its always been a management problem.

as for the UN... i think they are mainly ineffectual. they are ignored on many things and have no real power that i can see. if handful of countries can, and do play the veto card, whats the point of them? so we can pretend to be one big happy human rights abiding democratic family? if you think all nations are in practice equal, then you are sourly mistaken.

polaris_x

catefrances wrote:

absolutely many will die.. as they always have. i doubt anything we do as a species will stop or even curb that. my contention re: population and sustainability is that its always been a management problem.

as for the UN... i think they are mainly ineffectual. they are ignored on many things and have no real power that i can see. if handful of countries can, and do play the veto card, whats the point of them? so we can pretend to be one big happy human rights abiding democratic family?

well ... what i am contending is that if we address climate change - we can curb some of that suffering ..

largely ineffectual does not have bearing on the information coming from them ... are we to then say their report that the israel's floatilla raid was NOT a violation of international law because they are dysfunctional group?