• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas fights global-warming power grab

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yeah us "deniers" we just are stupid idiots easily duped by Big Oil Propaganda man, don't mind us much, we're dumb.

:roll:

There is plenty of peer reviewed science that counters AGW, but you claim there is none, why should we bother to waste space with a true believer?

Well in ten years of discussing this topic with denialists who ALWAYS claim to have "plenty of peer reviewed science" I have yet to see any. Well any that was not quoted out of context or cherry picked
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Define what you would call not based on fear mongering? Al Gore isn't a scientist, so quoting him isn't science. Scientist thank him for making the issue more public, but note flaws in hispresentation. This doesn't mean there isn't a real problem and that man doesn't play a large role.

Naturally, and even Al Gore in his latest book (unless there's a more recent one then what I'm thinking of) he's discussed how a 'science based' approach to tackling 'global warming' won't work, preferring instead 'faith based' arguments.

When the scientific questions on which these studies are founded are asked in such a way as to frame the problem in terms of CO2's impact on the area of study... odds are the intention is to create a study that will be used to fear monger.

To illustrate the point let's use the studies involving ocean acidification...
It was claimed that CO2 makes the oceans more acid (when sulfur has a far greater effect on PH levels)... then the claim was made how this would kill off ocean life... then the studies are complete and what do you know, all the previous fear mongering had neglected to account for the fact that marine life has survived through millions of years of atmospheric changes and can adapt to these minute changes.... IN SPITE of the fact that to get any 'useful' results the scientists had to use tests with 2-5 TIMES the current atmospheric levels of CO2..

Another quick illustration : If you go to a greenhouse, the CO2 levels are artificially raised to around 1000ppm of CO2 because the plants grow more efficiently with the higher levels of CO2.

The science has been presented many, many times. And deniers often ignore it, and always go back to Gore. Why?

Because Gore is the most vocal and noted alarmist... in spite of the fact that his film must start with a warning essentially stating 'Not a factual documentary'. The 'loose change' of the global warming.

Now, the science itself... look at the source; the CRU. They have been caught and admitted to fudging the data, and 'lost' the raw data, among other scandals. SO... EVEN IF the science had something to it... because of the corruption of a few individuals working for the IPCC and the CRU, now DECADES of science and understanding of the environment MUST be tossed out and restarted. One rotten apple has ruined the whole batch. I'm sorry to state it like that, but that's the reality... since they have been caught in a scientific fraud ANY scientific paper with their name on it, MUST for the sake of GOOD science be tossed out and restarted. Don't blame the deniers for that, blame the beloved alarmists.

I suggest they do because it is easier than dealing with the science. As you can find any opinion on the internet, they pick the fringe, the minioty, and try to act as if they are equal. All things are not equal aand the majority view is that GW is real and in part man made 9not wholey).

Yes, 'in part' is the key word here... in terms of CO2, that 'in part' is equivalent to 'background noise'. How many climate scientists have refused to even add the solar energy as part of their climate equation??? I've yet to see one. Yet, it's not 'co2' levels that rise untill midday and fall through the night... it's the sun.

So, once again, if you want to talk about REAL destruction of the environment rather then these damn fraudsters telling us that to save the world we gotta stop breathing... then we can have a conversation... untill then I'm treating GW alarmists as they are.... A JOKE.
 

Technocratic

Active member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
359
Reaction score
103
Location
Soviet Technate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, Al Gore is correct. People do not respond to arguments or empirical evidence. That's unfortunate, but a reality. You need to appeal to their emotions, because they will ignore other types of appeals. A recent study showed that warning labels are cigarette packs that focus on the objective health problems caused by tobacco smoke inhalation are not as effective as ones that appeal to the impact on somone's "personal looks or relations."

You need to hype up a problem like global warming and make it personal because no one cares otherwise. They think in terms of anecdotes and stories, not stats.

There is no big conspiracy to grab power. The biggest economic interests are in maintaining the status quo. You can make far more money opposing Global Warming than in supporting the concept.


Edit: Regarding supposed fraud, all the scientists in 'climate gate" were exhonerated and no evidence of any wrongdoing was found. At this point, no one seriously doubts global average temperatures are increasing, except for a few select, and very vocal, interest groups. But these are the same groups of people who fought for decades against evidence that showed Tobacco smoke was bad for you.
 
Last edited:

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,449
Reaction score
14,572
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Thank you Texas. I hope they are victorious and can defeat the EPA. The EPA is acting very shady and sleazy with their illegal attempt and seizing more power.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The OP doesn't make sense, as usual.

Just because some people in power are using the issue of global warming to make a power grab, doesn't mean the science behind global warming is wrong. These are two separate issues: the science, and the politics. The former is truth, the latter is up to democratic processes.

If you don't like the way your government is responding to the environmental issues, then attack your government, not the science.

Honestly... use your brains.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, I have. And most of that would be there regardless of their findings. It isn't there due to the result, like it is with the oil companies. Governments have no real gain concerning GW scinece. Companies do. In fact, it would work best for governments, for example, if the science wasn't what it was, which puts a whole in part of your argument.

But the fact is the science overwhelmingly supports GW and that man plays a role. This can be supported with any honest

search. ;)

The whole goal is to pass cap and trade. It's all about power and money. If it's only the environment and clean energy, we'll get there without cap and trade. We'll cut emissions without the government collapsing the economy and controlling every aspect of our lives. Let the free market work. There is no Global Warming Crisis that the Gov can use to do things they were never able to do before.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, Al Gore is correct. People do not respond to arguments or empirical evidence.

But, what does Charles Manson, James Lee (the discovery channel situation), and Obama's science scar have in common??

They are all global warming alarmists, and advocate murder in order to accomplish their environmental objectives.... sure the science czar holdren is nice about it, he just advocates having everyone sterilized and has a beaurocrat decide if you can breed. The sad thing is, this isn't a joke.

That's unfortunate, but a reality. You need to appeal to their emotions, because they will ignore other types of appeals. A recent study showed that warning labels are cigarette packs that focus on the objective health problems caused by tobacco smoke inhalation are not as effective as ones that appeal to the impact on somone's "personal looks or relations."

This isn't true... if we were talking about REAL solutions to the REAL problems, and still offered sensible ways to mitigate or eliminate these problems in a safe a clean way, you would find that your scientific arguments would work because they don't conflict with even the most basic understanding of science. I mean, I didn't learn the full chemical process of photosynthesis, but I DO KNOW enough to know that CO2 is converted into O2.

You need to hype up a problem like global warming and make it personal because no one cares otherwise. They think in terms of anecdotes and stories, not stats.

It all depends on intent and medium...

There is no big conspiracy to grab power. The biggest economic interests are in maintaining the status quo. You can make far more money opposing Global Warming than in supporting the concept.

LMAO!!! Serious?? Ok, you probably think this has to do with money... have you seen the homes of these people??? SO long as the environmental "crisis" carries on, the more governments will fund the scientific developments... so, yes, there's ALOT of money to be made... but when you're talking about those in charge of the energy companies, oil companies, and the banks that fund them... they are already fabulously wealthy beyond what they would ever need if they lived 50 lifetimes. This isn't about the money in as much as that money keeps them in control.

Edit: Regarding supposed fraud, all the scientists in 'climate gate" were exhonerated and no evidence of any wrongdoing was found. At this point, no one seriously doubts global average temperatures are increasing, except for a few select, and very vocal, interest groups. But these are the same groups of people who fought for decades against evidence that showed Tobacco smoke was bad for you.

Yes, all it took was a hearing of a bunch of global warming alarmists who looked and said 'no no wrong doing, they are cleared of any charges.

Your analogy is flipped around though... they are using 'tobacco science' to justify global warming.

I mean seriously, I have YET to see an alarmist even ATTEMPT to consider the suns energy in the equation... because the ANGLE ALONE of the suns rays hitting earth can make a difference between sweltering hot and so cold your spit freezes before it hits the ground. Then they get into 'co2 half-lifes' like it's friggen radiation or something... like come on children, it's CO2... you exhale it, plants 'breath' it... the earth is at a co2 starved point compared to points in history, without mentioning that a doubling of CO2 ONLY MAKES PLANTS SOAK UP MORE!!!

We can't get a weather forecast a week ahead with anything better then a 50-50 guess and these climate models,claim to be accurate HUNDREDS of years in the future. Yet they spend BILLIONS world wide... come on... there are SERIOUS and simple to remedy solutions... for example, pulp & paper replace it with hemp (not pot) and boom several issues just evaporate. Then you could look at the genetic pollution from genetic engineering of plants and animals... the recent studies on this subject are damning.

But you tell an "environmentalist" these things and it doesn't matter... it's all because there are too many humans breathing... that's the root of the "problem" according to these psychos that are pushing this at the top... and yes there is a such thing as a smart psychopath.
 

zip98053

Active member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
110
Location
98053
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The whole goal is to pass cap and trade. It's all about power and money. If it's only the environment and clean energy, we'll get there without cap and trade. We'll cut emissions without the government collapsing the economy and controlling every aspect of our lives. Let the free market work. There is no Global Warming Crisis that the Gov can use to do things they were never able to do before.

Unregulated markets don't work. The meltdown of our financial system proved that yet again. This is not really a matter of free market anyway, it is a problem of people misusing a common resource for their own benefit (the "sheep on the commons" problem). We have stopped companies from dumping cancer-causing crap in our rivers. It make sense to keep them, and all of us, from doing damage to the common resource that is our atmosphere. One way to motivate people to change their polluting ways is to make the cost of this behavior prohibitive. It exposes the true cost and it makes it alternatives more cost competitive. This is not so much a matter trying to regulate as it is an attempt to wean us from a really bad behavior, burning fossils for fuel.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unregulated markets don't work. The meltdown of our financial system proved that yet again. This is not really a matter of free market anyway, it is a problem of people misusing a common resource for their own benefit (the "sheep on the commons" problem). We have stopped companies from dumping cancer-causing crap in our rivers. It make sense to keep them, and all of us, from doing damage to the common resource that is our atmosphere. One way to motivate people to change their polluting ways is to make the cost of this behavior prohibitive. It exposes the true cost and it makes it alternatives more cost competitive. This is not so much a matter trying to regulate as it is an attempt to wean us from a really bad behavior, burning fossils for fuel.

No, it's not that 'unregulated' markets don't work... it's that there's been a lack of ENFORCEMENT of the crimes that can occur more easily in unregulated markets.

Finally someone that wants to talk about REAL environmental damage... but then goes back to blaming it all on fossil fuels... oops.
 

Technocratic

Active member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
359
Reaction score
103
Location
Soviet Technate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
But, what does Charles Manson, James Lee (the discovery channel situation), and Obama's science scar have in common??

They are all global warming alarmists, and advocate murder in order to accomplish their environmental objectives.... sure the science czar holdren is nice about it, he just advocates having everyone sterilized and has a beaurocrat decide if you can breed. The sad thing is, this isn't a joke.

Well, first, the fact that some people are crazy doesn't mean the core idea isn't true. The character of adherants doesn't detract from the truth of the concept. While some environmentalists are certain crazy, thats not really ultimately important.

But, regarding the no breeding thing, the basic concept is valid: people need to stop pumping out rabbit warrens. Too many people. No one likes to hear this, because everyone likes happy thoughts.

it'sthe

This isn't true... if we were talking about REAL solutions to the REAL problems, and still offered sensible ways to mitigate or eliminate these problems in a safe a clean way, you would find that your scientific arguments would work because they don't conflict with even the most basic understanding of science. I mean, I didn't learn the full chemical process of photosynthesis, but I DO KNOW enough to know that CO2 is converted into

I don't see how it's false to say that people are often emotional, irrational, and do not respond well to statistical or empirical explanations. If that weren't the case, then modern mass advertisements wouldn't be so effective, and people wouldn't be more responsive to "smoking will make you look ugly" labels instead of objective health statistics.

The problem with "sensible" methods to mitigate is "sensible" is really codeword for "anything that's not too inconvenient." People are generally lazy and short-term thinkers (just like the modern business model). Sensible to Joe Average is actually so insignficant a measure, it would never do anything, and even then, you will spend years trying to convince them of just doing that.

There are still millions of people who think the Earth is 10,000 years old. THat's the population you're dealing with. Making a scientific argument to a lay audience is beyond pointless. You're better off using hand puppets and scare tactics. :mrgreen:

We're dealing with a very serious future problem, and while it's hardly going to be the end of human civilization, we need to address it. But we don't have the advantage of unity to fix it. You got a corrupt, slow democratic system where anything proposed is trapped in endless debate, a population that is either totally ignorant or apathetic if it involves sacrifice, and a firmly entrenched and powerful battery of interest groups that oppose any real change (most industries). It took forever just to get passed the front organizations that tried to argue smoke inhalation isn't bad for you. And people still don't respond that well to the medical science.



LMAO!!! Serious?? Ok, you probably think this has to do with money... have you seen the homes of these people??? SO long as the environmental "crisis" carries on, the more governments will fund the scientific developments... so, yes, there's ALOT of money to be made... but when you're talking about those in charge of the energy companies, oil companies, and the banks that fund them... they are already fabulously wealthy beyond what they would ever need if they lived 50 lifetimes. This isn't about the money in as much as that money keeps them in control.

Yea, I have seen the homes, and while some people certainly take advantage of teh whole green craze, far more money can be made and mustered by the opponents of change. Green industry or advocates are small chump change.

Actually, the whole argument that global warming is some conspiracy to make money scientists is bizarre, since far more money would be made if they disproved it. The ones who have the real power are also the people most vocally against global warming.


Yes, all it took was a hearing of a bunch of global warming alarmists who looked and said 'no no wrong doing, they are cleared of any charges.
\

That's an assumption with no evidence. The case was examined and dismissed, as it had no merit.

Your analogy is flipped around though... they are using 'tobacco science' to justify global warming.

Quite the contrary. No serious climatologist disagrees that average global temperatures are increasing. The only actual debate is the pace and the scope of damages. There are a few people who disagree, but then again, there are some biologists who don't believe in evolution, either (M. Behe). They are marginal.

I mean seriously, I have YET to see an alarmist even ATTEMPT to consider the suns energy in the equation... because the ANGLE ALONE of the suns rays hitting earth can make a difference between sweltering hot and so cold your spit freezes before it hits the ground. Then they get into 'co2 half-lifes' like it's friggen radiation or something... like come on children, it's CO2... you exhale it, plants 'breath' it... the earth is at a co2 starved point compared to points in history, without mentioning that a doubling of CO2 ONLY MAKES PLANTS SOAK UP MORE!!!

The Sun does have an impact on Earth's climate. If not, we'd all be dead. However, modern climate models do in fact take into consideratoin solar cycles. Ironically, a lot of warming happened when the sun was least active. The sun is not a major factor in this case of warming according to the best available data.

Just because CO2 is natural, and common, does not mean it's harmless or without consequence. That's a serious error. Water can poison you, after all.

Yes, plants can soak up more CO2, but only to a certain extent. To believe the Earth is an infinite sink would be to commit the No Limits fallacy.


We can't get a weather forecast a week ahead with anything better then a 50-50 guess and these climate models,claim to be accurate HUNDREDS of years in the future. Yet they spend BILLIONS world wide... come on... there are SERIOUS and simple to remedy solutions... for example, pulp & paper replace it with hemp (not pot) and boom several issues just evaporate. Then you could look at the genetic pollution from genetic engineering of plants and animals... the recent studies on this subject are damning.

Weather isn't climate. It's actually easier to predict and deal with climate than daily weather changes.

But you tell an "environmentalist" these things and it doesn't matter... it's all because there are too many humans breathing... that's the root of the "problem" according to these psychos that are pushing this at the top... and yes there is a such thing as a smart psychopath.

Wait, who said the problem is caused by too many humans breathing? I've never heard any actual authorities on the subject specifically say that. You mock the concept of overpopulation, but it's actually a serious problem, but not for the reason you outlined. Are you under the impression that resources are infinite and that the Earth can sustain an infinite population?
 
Last edited:

zip98053

Active member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
110
Location
98053
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, it's not that 'unregulated' markets don't work... it's that there's been a lack of ENFORCEMENT of the crimes that can occur more easily in unregulated markets.

This is a non-sequitur. Regulation means having criminal penalties for bad behavior. If there were no penalties, then it is, by definition, unregulated and there is nothing to enforce.

Finally someone that wants to talk about REAL environmental damage... but then goes back to blaming it all on fossil fuels... oops.

I was staying relevant to the thread. If you would like to discuss other random environmental damage, maybe you should start a new one.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, first, the fact that some people are crazy doesn't mean the core idea isn't true. The character of adherants doesn't detract from the truth of the concept. While some environmentalists are certain crazy, thats not really ultimately important.

Environmentalism is simply starting to show its true face, and that is of neo-eugenics.

But, regarding the no breeding thing, the basic concept is valid: people need to stop pumping out rabbit warrens. Too many people. No one likes to hear this, because everyone likes happy thoughts.

it'sthe

Wrong... I don't care what any professor has told you in the past, there is NO overpopulation problem... especially in the western world where birth rates currently are no longer matching replacement rates. The only reason there seems any population increases is through migration.
I don't see how it's false to say that people are often emotional, irrational, and do not respond well to statistical or empirical explanations. If that weren't the case, then modern mass advertisements wouldn't be so effective, and people wouldn't be more responsive to "smoking will make you look ugly" labels instead of objective health statistics.

That's dealing with an addictive product, a different matter in a sense... but yes, it's through emotional arguments, that's why the 'environmentalist' commercials targeting kids show details like drowning puppies, talk about the plight of polar bears that will drown (when their numbers are increasing), the alarmism concerning deforestation never even considered that trees might pollinate and germinate to create new trees, that CO2 matters more then the sun's impact. So when you're violating all common sense, it's no wonder people don't take it serious.

HOWEVER, if you show people the hair growing in the mouths of the third generations of rodents fed certain types of GM foods, that might get people thinking about what they eat. The difference being is that one study has all the raw data available, whereas the climatologists 'lost' raw data... probably cause of 'fudging the numbers'.

The problem with "sensible" methods to mitigate is "sensible" is really codeword for "anything that's not too inconvenient." People are generally lazy and short-term thinkers (just like the modern business model). Sensible to Joe Average is actually so insignficant a measure, it would never do anything, and even then, you will spend years trying to convince them of just doing that.

Well, that's because of other simultaneous problems beyond the scope of the thread.

There are still millions of people who think the Earth is 10,000 years old. THat's the population you're dealing with. Making a scientific argument to a lay audience is beyond pointless. You're better off using hand puppets and scare tactics. :mrgreen:

Except even if you have a high school education, you should be able to debunk global warming alarmism... it's not much different that coming to the conclusion that santa claus isn't actually going to every house on earth in one night.

We're dealing with a very serious future problem, and while it's hardly going to be the end of human civilization, we need to address it. But we don't have the advantage of unity to fix it. You got a corrupt, slow democratic system where anything proposed is trapped in endless debate, a population that is either totally ignorant or apathetic if it involves sacrifice, and a firmly entrenched and powerful battery of interest groups that oppose any real change (most industries). It took forever just to get passed the front organizations that tried to argue smoke inhalation isn't bad for you. And people still don't respond that well to the medical science.

Yes, but here's where it goes from reasonable to retarded : Co2 does not cause cancer... it's generated constantly in your body for exhalation... you can't LIVE without CO2... so, inevitably this boils down to a 'population is killing the earth' and that's why these that buy into the death cult are now starting to act out on their deeply held belief that human caused co2 is ruining the earth.

Yea, I have seen the homes, and while some people certainly take advantage of teh whole green craze, far more money can be made and mustered by the opponents of change. Green industry or advocates are small chump change.

That however grows with their influence... and once you control CO2 you literally control life itself.... that's why we need to talk about REAL problems that don't require mass murder as a solution. For example; if an industry cannot create its product in a way that is not environmentally destructive (meaning actual dangerous chemical waste, not simply 'co2 and water vapour'), then perhaps the company should find an alternative means of creating that product or not make it at all... but to make the blanket statement that ALL human production is inherently bad, then you wind up with psychopaths and control freaks trying to run the show.

Actually, the whole argument that global warming is some conspiracy to make money scientists is bizarre, since far more money would be made if they disproved it. The ones who have the real power are also the people most vocally against global warming.

Actually, there are whole books (yes, plural) describing precisely the means, method and execution of the 'conspiracy', as well as explaining concisely WHY this needs to be done.


That's an assumption with no evidence. The case was examined and dismissed, as it had no merit.

Yes, like I said... it was examined and dismissed.... BECAUSE the investigators did not want to ruin the 'science', they were literal shills of the main priests of the GW church. In other words, a literal fox 'investigating' the hen house... I give it about as much credence as a 3$ bill.


Quite the contrary. No serious climatologist disagrees that average global temperatures are increasing. The only actual debate is the pace and the scope of damages. There are a few people who disagree, but then again, there are some biologists who don't believe in evolution, either (M. Behe). They are marginal.

Wrong again... That's why it's important for science to keep the raw data in tact... so, when these "scientists" are exposed when they commit blatant fraud.

The Sun does have an impact on Earth's climate. If not, we'd all be dead. However, modern climate models do in fact take into consideratoin solar cycles. Ironically, a lot of warming happened when the sun was least active. The sun is not a major factor in this case of warming according to the best available data.

That's the nice thing about computers, you can program them to provide anything you want... the REAL science can predict the weather for 7 days out with 50% accuracy, maybe 14 days out with increases in technology.... anyone that can predict or claims to any further is lying or believes their own guess.

Just because CO2 is natural, and common, does not mean it's harmless or without consequence. That's a serious error. Water can poison you, after all.

Lets' see, it would have toxic effect in about the 100s of times the concentration we see in the atmosphere... and plants grow at peak efficiency with double the current atmospheric CO2 levels.

Don't believe me, go to a greenhouse.

Yes, plants can soak up more CO2, but only to a certain extent. To believe the Earth is an infinite sink would be to commit the No Limits fallacy.

Not 'no limits'... it's that our influence in terms of CO2 is negligeable AT BEST... we could talk about OTHER topics then CO2 where the effect is MUCH MORE drastic, but like I said, we can find a solution that doesn't require killing a few billion people.

Weather isn't climate. It's actually easier to predict and deal with climate than daily weather changes.

Ya... I can predict the future too... and like the climate scientists I'm almost always wrong as well, so I just make it sound plausible and tell you that if you give me millions of dollars I'll find a way to solve the problem.


Wait, who said the problem is caused by too many humans breathing? I've never heard any actual authorities on the subject specifically say that. You mock the concept of overpopulation, but it's actually a serious problem, but not for the reason you outlined. Are you under the impression that resources are infinite and that the Earth can sustain an infinite population?

Every scientist that sounds the alarm because of 'co2 levels' without considering anything else, is at the core of his belief saying 'there are too many people exhaling CO2'... Most people in the world DO NOT generate much more CO2 then they exhale and the occassional fire to cook food.

Of course the earth couldn't sustain an infinate of people, HOWEVER humanity has shown time and again a limitless potential for ingenuity... and that as sanitation and industrialization goes to the third world, their populations will stabilize as well... the western world for all intents is dieing ... replace mommy OR daddy ONLY. The UN's own numbers show the case that proves that this concept of overpopulation is a complete exaggeration to say the least.
 
Last edited:

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is a non-sequitur. Regulation means having criminal penalties for bad behavior. If there were no penalties, then it is, by definition, unregulated and there is nothing to enforce.

Not quite... regulation means controlled. There are laws in place that exist regardless of regulation or deregulation. White collar crimes are for the most part unenforced... the majority of law enforcement is focused on the poor - middle classes.

I mean, it took 10 years before the SEC finally prosecuted Madoff...

I was staying relevant to the thread. If you would like to discuss other random environmental damage, maybe you should start a new one.

Can't do it, because for most so called environmentalists the ONLY problem is CO2.
 

zip98053

Active member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
110
Location
98053
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not quite... regulation means controlled. There are laws in place that exist regardless of regulation or deregulation. White collar crimes are for the most part unenforced... the majority of law enforcement is focused on the poor - middle classes.

I mean, it took 10 years before the SEC finally prosecuted Madoff...

The method of "control" IS enforment of the laws. We pass laws to make things not legal (like Ponzi schemes and making PCBs). It seems silly to say that laws are independent of regulation or vice versa.
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,483
Reaction score
8,227
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Saw a report that it's been determined that Swine Flu is absolutely no more dangerous than the typical everyday flu bug.

Let's see.......AIDS was going to kill us all, gay or not......then Y2K was going to shut down the planet......Bird Flu was going to kill us all.......oil almost ran out in the 70's, before we apparently found another hole full.......we were on the brink of an ice age in the late-70s......we've now survived repeated almost plagues of West Nile and Swine Flu.....

....and now cow farts and suburbans are going to heat the atmosphere to a point that we're all going to die in a hurricane.

But not before an asteroid takes us out in 2012, the end of the Mayan calendar.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
One way to motivate people to change their polluting ways is to make the cost of this behavior prohibitive. It exposes the true cost and it makes it alternatives more cost competitive. This is not so much a matter trying to regulate as it is an attempt to wean us from a really bad behavior, burning fossils for fuel.

This is nothing but a power grab. Picking winners and losers. Forcing people into cars,homes, life styles they may not choose. Why? POWER and Money. It has nothing to do with lowering the temperature of the planet. It has everything to do with passing an energy bill that will have cap and trade in it and redistribution of wealth to other countries.

Let's say CAP and TRADE passes, what do the "experts" say the difference in the Earths temperature will be in 20 yrs?
Remember China and Indonesia don't have to participate and our jobs will be going there for them to pollute.
 

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is nothing but a power grab. Picking winners and losers. Forcing people into cars,homes, life styles they may not choose. Why? POWER and Money. It has nothing to do with lowering the temperature of the planet. It has everything to do with passing an energy bill that will have cap and trade in it and redistribution of wealth to other countries.

Let's say CAP and TRADE passes, what do the "experts" say the difference in the Earths temperature will be in 20 yrs?
Remember China and Indonesia don't have to participate and our jobs will be going there for them to pollute.

This is EXACTLY why I want Texas to secede. Go build your own damn country.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Naturally, and even Al Gore in his latest book (unless there's a more recent one then what I'm thinking of) he's discussed how a 'science based' approach to tackling 'global warming' won't work, preferring instead 'faith based' arguments.

When the scientific questions on which these studies are founded are asked in such a way as to frame the problem in terms of CO2's impact on the area of study... odds are the intention is to create a study that will be used to fear monger.

To illustrate the point let's use the studies involving ocean acidification...
It was claimed that CO2 makes the oceans more acid (when sulfur has a far greater effect on PH levels)... then the claim was made how this would kill off ocean life... then the studies are complete and what do you know, all the previous fear mongering had neglected to account for the fact that marine life has survived through millions of years of atmospheric changes and can adapt to these minute changes.... IN SPITE of the fact that to get any 'useful' results the scientists had to use tests with 2-5 TIMES the current atmospheric levels of CO2..

Another quick illustration : If you go to a greenhouse, the CO2 levels are artificially raised to around 1000ppm of CO2 because the plants grow more efficiently with the higher levels of CO2.



Because Gore is the most vocal and noted alarmist... in spite of the fact that his film must start with a warning essentially stating 'Not a factual documentary'. The 'loose change' of the global warming.

Now, the science itself... look at the source; the CRU. They have been caught and admitted to fudging the data, and 'lost' the raw data, among other scandals. SO... EVEN IF the science had something to it... because of the corruption of a few individuals working for the IPCC and the CRU, now DECADES of science and understanding of the environment MUST be tossed out and restarted. One rotten apple has ruined the whole batch. I'm sorry to state it like that, but that's the reality... since they have been caught in a scientific fraud ANY scientific paper with their name on it, MUST for the sake of GOOD science be tossed out and restarted. Don't blame the deniers for that, blame the beloved alarmists.



Yes, 'in part' is the key word here... in terms of CO2, that 'in part' is equivalent to 'background noise'. How many climate scientists have refused to even add the solar energy as part of their climate equation??? I've yet to see one. Yet, it's not 'co2' levels that rise untill midday and fall through the night... it's the sun.

So, once again, if you want to talk about REAL destruction of the environment rather then these damn fraudsters telling us that to save the world we gotta stop breathing... then we can have a conversation... untill then I'm treating GW alarmists as they are.... A JOKE.

As I have said, Gore doesn't matter at all. He's not a scientist. So, going after Gore is a way to deflect from the science. And yes, in part is key, but no, it is not equal to background noise. The whole of the scientific coimmunity complately disagrees with you on that, and state so clearly. Pretendning otherwise is the real joke. A sad, sad joke play by and on deniers.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Saw a report that it's been determined that Swine Flu is absolutely no more dangerous than the typical everyday flu bug.

Not if you were obese and pregnant - then your chances of survival went down remarkably
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As I have said, Gore doesn't matter at all. He's not a scientist. So, going after Gore is a way to deflect from the science.

Ya, the sex poodle is a joke, and ultimately serves to demonstrate how much of a joke the whole concept is.

And yes, in part is key, but no, it is not equal to background noise.

Let's put this all into perspective : CO2 is in the 0.0X% of the total volume of the atmosphere... mans contribution to that is about 0.0X% of the total... and SOMEHOW, that 0.00X% of the CO2 in question (which ultimately cannot be measured as in 'this co2 is from the ocean' and 'this co2 is from car exhaust'... unless you're measuring from the source.) is something that will account for catastrophic climate change... that's as much of a joke as Al Gore. I dont remember the number of papers I've read on the subject that state either directly or implicitly that the sun's influence is negligible to the point that it's considered a constant, or not even considered.

Meanwhile, the SUN... well, the if you live in the northern hemisphere, winter time comes when the earth is closer to the sun, but because the rays hit at a different angle makes the difference between winter and summer weather... AND, even better, in the morning it's coolest BEFORE the sun rises, then it warms up throughout the day, and begins to cool before the sun has set. So, OBVIOUSLY, the sun is a great influence on climate.

The facts are that we do not understand the intricacies of the environment and climate more then enough to predict a matter of days ahead... anything further is simply a guess.... maybe an educated guess, but still. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking we can truly predict these things.

The whole of the scientific coimmunity complately disagrees with you on that, and state so clearly. Pretendning otherwise is the real joke. A sad, sad joke play by and on deniers.

Yes, but you don't get it... there are flaws like measuring temperatures recorded close to heat sources, 'padding' data, or using studies that get into such ridiculous levels of CO2 that would literally be fatal on it's own merit to conduct experiments... one study I saw said they were using 5000ppm CO2... which would be fatal if it could get to that point. Then there's factors like natural cycles that we don't even KNOW ABOUT that are going on that actually does influence CO2 levels... Plus, the fact that these guys were busted... yes, I know their buddies gave them a pass, but any real scrutiny of those letters, which wasn't SIMPLY the admission of the protocol to run the numbers through an algorithm that padded the data... it was discussing ways to prevent opposing viewpoints from appearing in respected journals, and other admissions of fraud. There's also a ton of mundane discussion, but honestly, the only way they were completely vindicated is if they were reading choice emails from the batch... which, it just so happens MSM media outlets were aware of this in the area of 3-6 months before being forced into reporting the discovery... think about that.

So, because the main SOURCE for data from the UN was the CRU, every other study is rendered bunk because the source data is completely unreliable, and all data coming out must be independantly verified. THEN, I might start giving it some credibility.

If you wanted to say fossil fuels are bad, you could point to the more problem gases; carbon monoxide, sulfurs, benzene coming off the tires (in very minute amounts), you could discuss policies of herbicides, pesticides, residential chemicals, industry waste procedures, ensuring that any pollution is captured and dealt with...

So, if we made it so the exhaust of your car released nothing but water vapor and CO2... I'd be absolutely impressed.

It's also been proven that people that buy green products are many times more likely to act immorally elsewhere.

So, finally, it's not the democratic position that 'most people say X' so X is correct... just objectively look at the information... a good place to start is the MSDS sheets...
Universal Industrial Gases, Inc. ... MSDS Gaseous Carbon Dioxide - CO2
Carbon Dioxide is a powerful cerebral dilator. At concentrations between 2 and 10%, Carbon Dioxide can cause nausea, dizziness, headache, mental confusion, increased blood pressure and respiratory rate. Above 8% nausea and vomiting appear. Above 10%, suffocation and death can occur within minutes

Now, what's the current atmospheric CO2 levels average?? 400-450 ppm??? So, until CO2 concentrations get above around 2000ppm before we'd start seeing any effect?? (though, I imagine at that levels you would quickly adapt to the thicker air) So... being a minute contributor to this trace gas, we're somehow going to somehow nearly fivefold increase naturally occurring levels of this gas???

So, NOT ONLY is global warming a proven fraud (not by me by their own admissions)... it is more and more showing itself to be a form of 'antihuman cult' where human activity is viewed as the enemy. Just like the book I keep sourcing as THE SOURCE document about global warming while the media was still panicking over the next ice-age that hasn't quite started yet... apparently. The club of rome document 'the first global revolution' (search that in google and you can easily find exerpts), but the one key quote is that in the beginning of the document makes the declaration

'The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.'

What went along with that crazed man that took over the discovery channel's global warming intentions?? He wanted to see more global warming issues being promoted... and what do you know, he advocated mass population reduction.

Again, Charlie Manson, what does he want?? He wants a world government to pull off mass population reduction.

Then there's bill gates speech where he says that he will reduce the birth rate up to 15% through vaccines and that CO2 = PEOPLE * activities * co2 generated per activity.... and 'ONE OF THESE' will have to be reduced to near 0.

Can you see a trend here??

Let's go further... you got me in rant mode.
Only-Child Myths Persist As More Parents Choose One Kid - TIME
Birth Control: For Zero Growth - TIME

Then Obama's science czar, Holdren, what does he advocate?? Putting sterilants in the water supply and have parents get the antidote through an application process... for the earth.

Because the inner-doctrine of church of climateology is now coming more to light about the true intentions behind this huge push towards 'action' on global warming. So, yeah, I don't doubt that we'll see more and more people who buy into this who will just go out and kill themselves.... or trying to engage in violence in order to 'exterminate the weeds' or whatever verbiage they might use.

If you go and add in the 'side-effects' of prozac / ritalin type SSRI drugs, that's reaching epidemic proportions... you're going to get some people with a bad trip that will go and kill themselves and their families because it will be 'good for the earth'.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Bmanmcfly, you lost complete credibility with the Holdren nonsense. As long as you buy into partisan crap, you can't be taken seriously. No a fact check on that and you should be able to see you error.

I'll try and address the rest later. But I had to point out how disappointing it is to see anyone spout out such stupid partisan nonsense.
 
Top Bottom