If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Why climate change is a political issue, not a scientific issue for fossil fuel magnates   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 54
    More: Obvious, the City of London, exhaust gas, fossil fuels, London School of Economics, atmospheric carbon dioxide  
•       •       •

2001 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Apr 2013 at 2:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-20 01:05:26 PM
I might as well point out some other GeneralJim errors (EVEN I haven't the stamina to do this in one post--if I could write that fast and well I'd be the author of 200 books by now).

They [the UN/IPCC] have the ability to end up destroying civilization out of this, and sending us back to a new sort of hunter-gatherer society.

This is precisely the argument made against wastrel and destructive economic actions (by ourselves as by others). WE all possess the means of destroying civilization, such as it is, and sending ourselves back to a more primitive social level. We can do this by 1) overconsuming finite resources; 2) destroying resources wantonly, either intentionally (deforestaton) or unintentionally (ozone depletion, ocean acidification, dead zones caused by fertilizer run-off, the spread of human viruses or animal diseases to wild life; 3) pollution of the more conventional sort.

All of the things which potentially threaten our environment and its ability to provide a lifelihood for humans, livestock, crops, wild animals and plants, etc., lead back to our excessive consumption of fossil fuels. It is almost certain that live on Earth depends on the sequestration of excesse nutrients such as the carbon in CO2, the nitrogen in NO2 (and those fertiliziers); dust, heavy metals produced by mankind or as byproducts of mining, agriculture, etc.

In short, the environmentalists believe they are fighting FOR the survival of civilization, humanity, and the natural world which supports them. And they are more right than their slanderers and paid character-assasins in politics and the media, as well as the various lobbying institutions which connect with politics and the media.

The UN is a bête-noire of conservatives (and especially nationalists) around the world, but it is not the Bogey-Man it is made out to be. With all its flaws, it is not seeking to destroy anything. It is trying to do many different jobs multilaterally rather than bi-laterally.

Here's a question: How can the UN be so useless and pointless and have the power to destroy everything at the same time? IT HAS TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER.

I personally don't believe that it is all that powerful. Heck, I don't believe that the World Bank and IMF are all that powerful. The nations that control them are powerful, but mostly these institutions publish a lot of papers and do little unless your country becomes a basket case. But why not blame the people who make basket-cases?
 
2013-04-20 01:18:12 PM
If not for the fact that literally TRILLIONS of dollars, and the control of almost all human activity, are at stake, the idea that carbon dioxide controls temperature would have disappeared.

Sort of right, almost, in a wrong-headed way.

In fact, scientific facts seldom become political footballs unless there is money attached to them or they violate cherished beliefs (notably religious beliefs, which having no basis in fact, are easily out-raged). See, I just outraged a lot of religious beliefs without even naming them, let alone criticizing them. (But that's just a human opinion. It's not got God's say so -- So is the way you interpret Scriptures, dumbass. YOUR BIBLE. YOU ARE READING IT WRONG.)

In fact, if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere had no economic causes (it was natural, as the denialists falsely claim) and no economic effects (we could let Nature take care of herself) than the papers that show that we are disrupting the atmospheric balance of greenhouse gases in dangerous, potentially catastrophic ways and that we must stop and stop soon if we are to avoid paying the piper) would be ignored, and safely ignored.

But that's not how the Universe works, unfortunately.

I trot out once again the fact that no scientist dares to deny and which thus never is thrown into the dog pit of climate politics: the Earth's naked-body temperature is approximately -18.5 degrees Celsius. Strip away our atmosphere, or specifically a thin mixture of greenhouse gases which would amount to about a millimeter or so of the total column of air, and that is the temperature Earth would be.

Venus is a hothouse world with "runaway global warming". Its survace temperature is 450 Celsus or about 900 Fahrenheit, which is hotter than Mercury, which is so much closer to the Sun. It would be a comfortable temperature without its thick atmosphere which consists almost entirely of greenhouse gases (CO2 and a bit of water). And that is despite the reflective power of its massive cloud cover, made white by sulphuric acid mixed with its water).

In short, Life on Earth would be impossible or restricted to bacteria and other deep life without greenhouse gases, and too much of them is just as bad.

The mean global temperaturue was about 14.5 C before our great experiment with atmospheric greenhouse gases and isn't much more than 15.5 C now. The concentration of CO2 was about 280 ppm in 1790 and is around 380-390 ppm now.

This is fact. Yes, it wouldn't be politics if there wasn't a lot of money at stake. But the money does to motivate the scientists so much as the money-loving critics. True, scientists are part of the same global economy as the rest of us, but they prefer to do science than make money, and they are only concerned that they might not be able to do either for much longer if we don't fix our costly mistakes soon, like, yesterday!
 
2013-04-20 01:27:06 PM
If not for the fact that literally TRILLIONS of dollars, and the control of almost all human activity, are at stake, the idea that carbon dioxide controls temperature would have disappeared.

[The scientific community] is now carrying water for the environmental activist retards in hopes of scaring people into making the U.N. the world's dictator

Face it -- the U.N. sees climate issues as an excuse to re-distribute wealth, plain and simple.

The U.N. and U.S. leftist bungholes pushing this want to control essentially every human action.


This is conspiracy theory stuff. I am not going to bother.

You can't convince a conspiracy theorist of anything ,or rational, or even plausible to a non-conspiracy theorist, or get an idea into their head with a mallet and a spike. Conspiracy theories are protean, they absorb everything they touch like the Blob and they barefacedly deny everything that could remotely be consdered as evidence contrary to whatever their latest synthesis of conspiracies is, and this changes every time something bad (or good) happens.

Logic never convinces. That is the be-all-and-end-all of conspiracy-type thinking.

The Enemy is always All-powerful and Pure Evil and Invisible to everybody but the conspiracy theorist and his ilk. This isn't science or politics. It is demonology. Conspiracists are merely secular or religious students of the Devil and All His Works, which is to say everybody who isn't with them 100%, all the time.
 
2013-04-20 01:32:15 PM
This hard-left [Obama] administration will probably be making attempts soon to have dissent from the state religion be criminal, or at least proof of insanity. Nothing like locking up any opposition.

Hard leftists are laughing at you behind your back.

And to your face, I wouldn't be surprised at all, provided some of them can find it.

The Obama Administration seems to love the errors of its immediate predecessor (two Bush Adminstrations, nay, three Bushes, four if you count the good friendship between the Clintons and the elder Bushes as evidence of political as well as social connections). It is no more a tyranny than Bush was.

Accuse me of Bush Derangement Syndrome if you like. Obama Derangement Syndrome is a variant of the same disease.

At least I hope this is true. Because otherwise you have to look at racism as a motivating power behind ODS. And even greater dangers to the sanity of the Republic and the Republicans for which it stands.
 
Displayed 4 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report