33 replies to this topic

[Professor Buzzkill]

The only thing scarier that global warming is letting the global warming alarmist make decisions about our lives.

[Br Cornelius]

Professor Buzzkill, on 01 November 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

The only thing scarier that global warming is letting the global warming alarmist make decisions about our lives.

Why, would you rather have all the decisions made by people who profit from pollution ??

Br Cornelius

[Professor Buzzkill]

Br Cornelius, on 01 November 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

Why, would you rather have all the decisions made by people who profit from pollution ??

Br Cornelius

I would rather have sane people in charge.

The green party in my country have just announced a policy to regulate how much profit a bank can make in a financial year. How is that a sane position? What would a bank do with their money if it looks like they would break the artificial profit number? Burn their money? throw it away?

Banks making profit shows that confidence in the economy is growing and hence people are borrowing money.

Before you destroy a system, you had better make sure that the alternative is a workable solution or it will be a repeat of failed communist policies where everyone has the same amount of goods/property so no-one gets jealous that their neighbour has a bigger TV than them.

[Br Cornelius]

Professor Buzzkill, on 01 November 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

I would rather have sane people in charge.

The green party in my country have just announced a policy to regulate how much profit a bank can make in a financial year. How is that a sane position? What would a bank do with their money if it looks like they would break the artificial profit number? Burn their money? throw it away?

Banks making profit shows that confidence in the economy is growing and hence people are borrowing money.

Before you destroy a system, you had better make sure that the alternative is a workable solution or it will be a repeat of failed communist policies where everyone has the same amount of goods/property so no-one gets jealous that their neighbour has a bigger TV than them.

What the Green Party proposes and what scientists propose are entirely different things. Your example is a Red Herring of the most absurd kind. The fact that the banks have all but destroyed the world economy and so obviously require regulation is an important side issue which at least the Greens are thinking about.
Back to, would you have all the decisions about your future determined by people who profit from pollution ?

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 01 November 2012 - 09:31 PM.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Br Cornelius, on 01 November 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

What the Green Party proposes and what scientists propose are entirely different things. Your example is a Red Herring of the most absurd kind. The fact that the banks have all but destroyed the world economy and so obviously require regulation is an important side issue which at least the Greens are thinking about.
Back to, would you have all the decisions about your future determined by people who profit from pollution ?

Br Cornelius

The green party are the political arm of Greenpeace and other radically loony organizations that have no sense of how the world actually works.

As far as i am aware, no governments "profit from pollution"

[Hilander]

Your right governments don't profit from pollution but they often profit from the pollution makers.

We need to find a balance in ways to deal with pollution that aren't too extreme or too relaxed.  The US has all kinds of laws in place to protect the environment and often fund research for other forms of energy besides fossil fuel.  I think we do need to get more serious with the research and development.  As does places like China and Russia, this is one thing the world needs to be in on because it affects us all.

I'm hoping the Arctic will refreeze and not thaw so much next year but I may be wishing for too much.

[Br Cornelius]

Professor Buzzkill, on 01 November 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

The green party are the political arm of Greenpeace and other radically loony organizations that have no sense of how the world actually works.

As far as i am aware, no governments "profit from pollution"

Your opinion is been directly influenced by the propoganda machine of big oil. They have successfully stalled action on AGW for a decade now - they are shaping policy on an international basis. They are defining the response to climate change and they are profiting from doing nothing about climate change.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1o29]

Br Cornelius, on 01 November 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

Why, would you rather have all the decisions made by people who profit from pollution ??

Br Cornelius

In the US we have a little problem with the environmental regulations, themselves.  Building a new electric plant requires a lot of scrubbers and other expensive hardware.  But you don't have to have that stuff if you repair an old, dirty coal-burning plant.  So the industries are repairing the old plants, keeping them online long after they would normally have been replaced.

And that points up two problems:  industry will not clean up its act unless forced to, and it takes better regulations than we currently have on the books.
Doug

[Hilander]

That don't seem right letting them slide on the old stuff but strict on the new.

[Kazoo]

Sakari, on 27 October 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

All ready said I would not care if I were part of it.

If it means a better place for the grand kids, and their kids, ( meaning every ones ) then so be it...I am not selfish.

It would be a better place for no one. We depend on each other as a species to provide for the needs of each other. Those millions of strangers you will have no problem dying also support our future children.

Maybe if they live in an amish farm hidden from civilzation it could totally work. If not then the future kids are screwed.

[Br Cornelius]

Kazoo, on 02 November 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

It would be a better place for no one. We depend on each other as a species to provide for the needs of each other. Those millions of strangers you will have no problem dying also support our future children.

Maybe if they live in an amish farm hidden from civilzation it could totally work. If not then the future kids are screwed.

They are screwed anyway if nothing changes. Better to change things now and offer them some hope for a viable future.
Still, i seriously believe that we will not make it into that better future with the projected levels of population growth and everyone aspiring to  my modest lifestyle.

No easy answers for us humans.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Professor Buzzkill, on 01 November 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

The green party are the political arm of Greenpeace and other radically loony organizations that have no sense of how the world actually works.

As far as i am aware, no governments "profit from pollution"

these types broke into a mink farm and released them into the wild, the mink killed all the wild birdlife for miles around. then they rounded up urban foxes in the cities and released lorry loads of them into the country, a single fox will kill all hens it encounters, a lot of the local egg producers were wiped out, these weren't corporate battery farms, these were mr and mrs free range operations selling roadside eggs to supplement their meager incomes, dozens of foxes ended up being shot. Also poisoned the fox hunt dogs which also kills local employment. idiots don't know what they are doing.

[stevewinn]

Yet again the scare tactics used in the climate debate are evident, 850 Billion Tons of Carbon Could Be Released, oh no, were doomed. what a load of crap. - i mean have people forgot everything they were taught in school - even the basics of free thinking? 4.5Billion years of evolution - and the world is ending with us. no bloody chance. The pages of history show us a warmer earth results in a greater biodiversity and when the earth cools the biodiversity also decreases. i've said it before look at the present day - life is most abundant in the warmer parts of the world such as the tropics compared to the poles.

Take into account the time scale predicted by soothsayers for our doomsday. a century,100 years. the time frame is no coincidence, this time frame is also the future new life expectancy of humans born in the western world today. us here today will be long gone, dead. so the play on fear is to save the children of tomorrow. - if i was to say the doomsday scenario of climate change was one thousand years from now, the whole argument has changed and too the attitudes. think about it. how far are we from the end........................

Edited by stevewinn, 02 November 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[Little Fish]

any climate threat will come from a global ice age.

some perspective:

[Br Cornelius]

Steve,
No one is claiming that the world is ending because of us. The world will continue, but the world we need to survive may not. To the world this matters not one tiny jot since it has been through 6 mass extinctions in its long history. Unfortunately we are not the world and we will certainly regret having destroyed the equilibrium of a system on which have come to depend on having a very narrow set of environmental variables. For most that going to be terminal - for some they will probably survive into a very different future.

I don't know what hole you pulled the time scale of 100yrs, the long decline will really kick-in in about 30yrs and will continue for at least 300yrs thereafter. It will certainly be in my life time and yours. No distant horizon here - its almost now.

Hey, that may not concern you but it does me.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 02 November 2012 - 07:57 PM.