We're all DOOMED

[captain morgan]

We are getting our ass handed to us environmentally and economically.

Good point.. Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland are really eating our lunch on both fronts.

The message you should be hearing is that you are illiterate.

Alright then.. Have you voluntarily contributed into the program?... The IPCC will gladly accept your cheque and issue a thank you note from Gaia.

.. So... Have ya?

 

[petros]

In one article it states we have to go Socialist and industrialize the poor and then another posted as racial hate says we should punish china for industrializing and going higher tech than what we offer as "help" to the poor nations.

 

[captain morgan]

In one article it states we have to go Socialist and industrialize the poor and then another posted as racial hate says we should punish china for industrializing and going higher tech than what we offer as "help" to the poor nations.

The do-gooders have many overlapping agendas.

 

[petros]

Good point.. Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland are really eating our lunch on both fronts.

Too bad they can't carry their share of derivative losses like we allegedly can.

 

[captain morgan]

Too bad they can't carry their share of derivative losses like we allegedly can.

Sure they can... Ask France and Germany about that.

 

[petros]

The do-gooders have many overlapping agendas.

China's political, social and human resource structure is our "Green Socialist" future.

 

[mentalfloss]

Good point.. Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland are really eating our lunch on both fronts.

Yes, and it just so happens that two of those are the worst environmentally-minded countries in the EU. What a shocker.

By the way, Europe does eat our lunch if you've been following the news this past week.

Sure they can... Ask France and Germany about that.

You mean those countries that have better environmental policy but maintain a higher GDP than we do?

Seriously, who are you guys trying to fool?

 

[petros]

Yes, and it just so happens that those are the worst environmentally-minded countries in the EU. What a shocker.

Europe out populated it's natural resource base 500 years ago. That's why they came here and why E. Europeans aren't too quick to let them into their supply.

 

[captain morgan]

Yes, and it just so happens that those are the worst environmentally-minded countries in the EU. What a shocker.

So, I'm guessing that the argument that eco-legislation is economically attractive is a big ole mistake then, eh?.. I mean, didn't the EU chastise Canada for not jumping onto their Titanic via Kyoto?

Now, it seems, they are rethinking the merits of swallowing the pap that the IPCC was dishing-out.

You mean those countries that have better environmental policy but maintain a higher per capita GDP than we do?

Typical lefty logic. Looked into their debt crisis at all? Get out a wee bit more, it will broaden your horizons.

As long as you're writing cheques to the IPCC for carbon offsets, send some cash off to the EU Central Bank (or equivalent) to help bail them out... It will be greatly appreciated.

On that note, I notice that you have not responded to my suggestion that you (individually) put your money where your mouth is and ante-up into the game.... Why no response on that? Doesn't every journey of a thousand miles begin with a single step?

 

[mentalfloss]

Typical lefty logic. Looked into their debt crisis at all? Get out a wee bit more, it will broaden your horizons.

Typical non-logic. Not referring to what country you're talking about, the cause of that debt crisis, and what capacity it is needed to handle that crisis. I'm sure all the Euro countries should replace environmental investment with a $35 B military proposal for ****ty jets, lol

 

[darkbeaver]

I'm a bit more optimistic about our environmental maintenance, but still acknowledge AGW as a reality.

Whether or not it exists has been settled for quite some time now (sorry deniers).

The real question is the degree of damage, and the amount of effort we need to put in to counter that affect.

One easy solution is axing the XL pipeline. That would be a move thats good for both the environment and the economy in the long term.

The existence of AWG has been settled, as you say, but not as you believe. Anthropocentric Global Warming has been imbedded in the first world cultural mire in exactly the same way consumerism, war and fascism has, through intense propaganda over multiple decades. This is certainly true, no one would deny the effort nor the proof of that effort. The facts, however, do not support the slam dunk acknowledgement that you and the bulk of the well meaning rubes cling to in the forlorn hope for environmental change through the very same human agencies presently about the task of human and planetary obliteration. These agents know without doubt what exactly the environmental change will look like since they are providing the tools. The environment must be made safe for the elite ruling order no other consideration whatever is being made. If you wish the science evidence contrary to your position I will post a link.
Climate change is a vehicle made available by long standing cyclical celestial change that cannot be altered by even one mm no matter how enormous or religious the human effort. The planets ruling elite have known the facts about earth for a very long time and the rest of us are just beginning to see the truth of this, again. And that is the only environmental adjustment they are interested in performing.

 

[mentalfloss]

Climate change is a vehicle made available by long standing cyclical celestial change that cannot be altered by even one mm no matter how enormous or religious the human effort.

Well, I think it's a wonderful world of certainty for you if you legitimately believe that. :lol:

 

[TenPenny]

Climate change is a vehicle made available by long standing cyclical celestial change that cannot be altered by even one mm no matter how enormous or religious the human effort.

So you're saying that climate change due to man is completely, utterly, and totally impossible, is that correct?

 

[Tonington]

Climate change is a vehicle made available by long standing cyclical celestial change that cannot be altered by even one mm no matter how enormous or religious the human effort.

There was considerable opposition to the Coppernican model of our solar system too, once upon a time. Eventually people accepted the unacceptable, the observations of the scientists of the day. A similar pattern of denial has followed climate science.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Enough for them to comfortably afford a carbon tax. Just like us.

A carbon tax is just a tax. More money for the government accomplishing litte.

 

[coldstream]

The more undermined the psuedo science of AGW becomes, the more hysterical the threats of doom.

That's okay it helps the case of those who know this to be a Fraud, in fact, a financial scam aimed at controlling the productive economy through Carbon Credits.. a gathering financial fiasco that dovetails with Free Market paradigm that is driving the world to economic collapse. That is a prospect worth worrying about.

Not one the AGW predictions has ever come true, in fact, just the opposite, the Northern Hemisphere at least has been in a cooling cycle for at least a decade, and likely will remain so.

So i say let them scream themselves hoarse. It's about time people realized the AGW Emporer is wearing no clothes.. it's all a bluff and posturing. No science exists.

 

[mentalfloss]

A carbon tax is just a tax. More money for the government accomplishing litte.

That's why we need accountability measures.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

That's why we need accountability measures.

From government? Thats the best joke I have heard all day!

 

[darkbeaver]

So you're saying that climate change due to man is completely, utterly, and totally impossible, is that correct?

Certainly not, that would violate the laws of physics, I am saying anthropocentric influence is so small it is practically pointless to consider it at all, let alone tax it. Even if we exterminated ourselves the climate would continue to change according to fluctuating charge densities upstream in the solar flow/field. The present round of climatic change is an adjustment of mass in this solar system which proceeds permanently, we are just outside of the comfortable parameters of memory, history is clear about cataclysmic climatic change, and the advantage that might be had by bold enterprising monsters who know the signs and the timings of the big transmission and don't mind a bit of carnage as they claw their way to the chosen exclusivity of ancestral caves. Look up at the sky, it's a pretty accurate clock calendar record and promise of doom. What to do? Pay the carbon tax or buy some lamp oil? It's a fine time for natural growth and development, I think.

 

[damngrumpy]

The collection envelopes of the movement must be getting smaller it is time for
fear to come to the fore. I know there is a changing climate and the two sides
of this discussion are so polarized they can't come to a collective opinion on
what the real problem is let alone the solutions to solve it.
We must understand we have a problem that may or may not be man made the
problem is society has decided to attack each other instead of concentrating on
the problem itself. The other side of the issue is there is a problem that is not
man made but a natural evolution of the climate change. In some circles they
have already determined that destroying the nations economy will solve the whole
problem. It would make it worse. We would be forced to burn wood and coal
as there would be no money to buy alternative heating sources.
We would go to horses to farm requiring more land for horse feed and less food
production and more waste products to pollute the land base. Less food would
be grown and people would do what ever is required to keep from starving and
those decisions could or might not have any impact at all.
The problem we face is we don't want the real facts to get in the way of a good
story, so we use propaganda and slogans instead of real facts and solutions
I am likely as guilty as everyone else. I am not going to be lead to conclusions
that may not be real, so until I see some common ground from those in the
scientific community, I will take both sides findings with a grain of salt. Oh a grain
of salt might be bad for me right?