Ice in Antarctica proves Global Cooling!

Post Reply New Topic

Please don't put words in my mouth or mischaracterize my posts. There is nothing paranoid about what I believe, you guys openly advocate for it. You said yourself if global redistribution is necessary then so be it(with a wink and nudge I'm sure). Do you believe in the population bomb garbage too?

When did this thread get deemed a "scientific" discussion? OP posted a TYT video. I don't really care for dueling Google battles about who can find the most proof against the other side. I hate those types of discussions on here. Global warming is an extremely political issue and anybody that denies that has an agenda of their own and it certainly isn't scientific.

As for part about more people dying under "right wing governments", I'd like to hear how you got to that opinion. So to you, inaction is the same as placing a gun to your head? That is a pretty bizarre line of thinking in my opinion. Every self proclaimed communist government resulted in malicious mass killings however many more actually died because of economic idiocy. Mao's Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people. Most people see the evilness inherent in Naziism but for some reason the apologists for Communism haven't.

In other words, the communist's hearts were in the right place and it was just a little mishap that at least tens of millions were exterminated. And far more have died from right wing politics because they couldn't get a free shot of penicillin for the clap or weren't provided a pair of safety shoes for work.

When it comes to predicting sometimes they get it wrong. More than one outcome possible. This is why. I have repeated it in this thread. Sometimes, it's not as extreme as they say it's going to be, either.

I am sorry, but you would have to be a complete idiot to get from what I said to "Stalin's heart was in the right place". Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and any others you care to mention, were unquestionably evil.

However, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pot, and the likes are NOT representative of the whole of the left. Firstly, they were all extreme authoritarians. Secondly, they were TO THE LEFT of a large majority of leftists. Jacoby committed a fallacy when he said that believing in taxation made you a murderer.

In 1850, life expectancy for a baby born in America was 38.3. I can't find a reliable figure for the UK but I expect it was similar. Since governments have started regulating stuff and providing services, that figure has nearly doubled. Many other improvements have come in that time, and every country in the world has benefited- but it is inescapable that the actions of governments have saved many millions of lives, and if those who think government should just run the police, courts and prisons had been in charge 150 years ago, many more would have died.


The "with a wink and a nudge" is paranoia in itself! And I didn't say "global redistribution", I said "energy subsidies".

We've benefited from burning fossil fuels. Developing countries can't do that. It is only fair that we help them absorb the extra costs of renewable energy. That is not "world government". There are no lizard people behind this.
I think people in developing countries will naturally start having fewer children if their economies develop, but that will be a struggle if they don't have access to renewable energy (or nuclear power). Economic development is tied very closely to energy consumption.
Like I say, if you want to discuss responses then create your own thread.

You hate discussions that are based around evidence?

The OP posted some bad evidence. A lot of people posted varying qualities of evidence in response. Much of the evidence was, to some degree, scientific.

A death is a death. If a government says "nah, we won't provide free healthcare to all citizens", and the result is lost lives, capitalism has killed them (obviously sometimes money can be better spent elsewhere. Holodomor wouldn't have been so bad if the Soviets had forwarded food aid to the Ukrainians... obviously that would have been a bit bizarre after probable confiscation of food, but nonetheless, their inaction made things worse than their actions alone.

You can allow a train to hit 20 people, or pull a lever so it only hits one person. Which action is worse? I think most people would opt for the inaction, because more people die.

The teenage Marxist doesn't like history, unsurprising. Where did I say taxation made you a0 murderer? What did I say about putting words in my mouth? I said that Communism is a murderous ideology in response to you calling my beliefs being "tin-foil politics", I thought you wanted evidence based discussion? Evidence tells me that my worries about well founded.

I am against violence, I do not believe that rights exist that infringe on the rights of other. You don't have any right to what I have and vice versa, there is nothing charitable about armed robbery. You do realize that you are rationalizing and apologizing for the mass murder of these communist regimes right? How can your response to the deliberate mass murder inherent in all Communist regimes(only just a portion of the amount killed by the way) be that "right wing governments" kill more by not putting you on the dole. Completely laughable.

Provided solid, rigorous science has been conducted, we're talking about a 5% chance or less of being wrong according to our best statistical tests. Even if you don't wanna look at it that way, we're looking at a 97% consensus rating. You might as well be an evolution denier, it's got less consensus than anthropogenically-driven global warming. Do you deny evolution as well?

Unless you can actually demonstrate that they're likely to have it wrong, "durr hurr it's possible they could be wrong!" is a pretty flimsy argument.



I, as a libertarian, for one do not promote moving over to demonstrably flawed systems as a result of global warming. We're going to have to accept that there are hidden costs to the environment that we haven't been paying for, that we have to start. That means no more super cheap shirts, that means making things last instead of throwing them away, that means big corporations having to take a bit hit to their profits so that CEOs can only afford 1 instead of 3 holiday homes this year. Yes it'll suck, but we'll just have to get over it.

...but none of that implies that we'll need to change over from capitalism at all, just that all the wondrous growth and development we've enjoyed for the past 100+ years is gonna be taking a major hit. By no means does it mean the end of capitalism (Which, for the record, I don't believe is some kind of magical, wondrous system either, it's just the least s**t system we've managed to devise).

That "consensus" is based on climate -model-, not proper physical science. Climate is chaotic dynamics in action (as is weather) and we have no really good physical theories to account for chaotic systems. That is why we cannot predict weather reliably more than ten days in advance (or thereabouts).

ruveyn

Maybe you don't know a whole lot about science, but models are a pretty big, major part of them. Ecology uses models heavily, you don't see people freaking the f**k out about ecology do you? Why? Because it doesn't bother their precious profits or political views.

Ecology, and all of their models, have been demonstrably reliable in restoration ecology and conservation efforts, and I see no reason why the climatological models should be any less reliable.

Put your money where your mouth is, you can take your vow of poverty if you feel so strongly. Maybe Al Gore should give up one of his many vacation homes and his life of luxury if feels that The reality is that fossil fuels power the world economy and will continue to do so for the immediate future, you can't tell the undeveloped world too bad too late. If you're worried about the population of earth then the only thing that change that is to develop the undeveloped world. As I said earlier in this thread, if these people are soooooo worried about the environment and the fate of the world then why don't they advocate for solutions that don't include the jackboot of government?

Because people are lazy and won't recycle unless the jack boot threatens to kick their collective ass.Take California's emission control,all those people would not go in voluntarily to find out how much smog their car coughing out,it had to be made a law.

They should get their own act in order before they start ordering other people around, people whine so much about industry but it is government that pollutes more than anyone and they operate above any law or regulation.

I won't disagree about the goverment being a big sorce of sludge.All goverment buildings should be green and efficient.A savings for the tax payer in the long run.

I think there are some holes in evolutionary theory but I do agree with it working under harsh conditions, not artificial ones humans create.
I also agree with with the solid facts about CO2, like the amounts being released and accurate measurements, just not when they say so and so will happen. I believe it when I see it.

Bring it, ye arctic wind! I beat yo arse! I have native american blood in me, I will survive. I am Ice Veins, RAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAR!! !
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cf6eeQr_2g[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuScCN1yfpU[/youtube]

Who said anything about poverty? Maybe you should stop making s**t up. You wouldn't know poverty if it smacked you in the face, btw.



Sounds good to me. We'll all have to made concessions.




Probably the biggest headache we're going to have is actually getting everyone to go along with it. If we all don't do it, there's little point in any of us doing it, because those of us that aren't will readily exploit those of us that are.



I can't say much about the rest of the world, but here in New Zealand the emphasis has been on sustainable management and development, not going socio-anarchist on everyone.





Lead by example, I agree.



So I'm guessing you've never heard of Canis familiaris then...or Brassica oleracea. Hint: They're all practically unrecognizable from their wild types, and are excellent examples of breakneck speed evolution. Not only does evolution work under artificial human conditions, it can work exceedingly fast under said conditions. You REALLY ought to get yourself educated on these topics before forming your clueless opinions.



If your opinions on global warming were formed in any manner similarly to your opinions on evolution, there's doubtlessly several glaring holes in your knowledge about the subject.

You don't know my life.