Pages: 1 2 3

 

Poll

Should the environmental measures being suggested be enacted?

Yes - all of them61%61% - 46
Yes - some of them (please list which ones)17%17% - 13
Unsure6%6% - 5
No14%14% - 11
Total: 75
2007-03-21 02:24:00
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7103|Canberra, AUS

theelviscerator wrote:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

When you figure that much out, you have to take into consideration the political causes driving EACH position.

Facts rarely have much to do with these kind of matters.

Global warming is not really about earth science as it is about politics and a push to a global one world government, where Big Brother has full control over all countries under its steel umbrella.

Look to Kyoto and tell me all the countries that have signed it, that are meeting the standards set in it.

Take Australia for example one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita and the home of some of the people arguing here.

If Kyoto is reducing GHG emissions so well why are we still going up?


If its not helping then why "should" it help?


This is mostly about politics and not science. End of Story.

socialism masked as green policies.
Rofl, this is getting funny.

IT'S ALL LIES! THE EVIL GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL MOSTERS ARE COMING TO EAT US WITH "COMMON SENSE!"

I think we should ignore this guy from now.

Yet I'm still responding

Take Australia for example one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita and the home of some of the people arguing here.
No-one said we agreed with the government.

If Kyoto is reducing GHG emissions so well why are we still going up?
Maybe, because the world's biggest emitters aren't part of Kyoto? Anyway, it's not like it's meant to do anything on its own.

If its not helping then why "should" it help?
Huh?

Global warming is not really about earth science as it is about politics and a push to a global one world government, where Big Brother has full control over all countries under its steel umbrella.
Lol @ paranoia. Where on earth did you pull that from? Those things are as unrelated as apples and meteorites. Anyway, go to wikipedia and tell me that the peer-reviewed scientific articles there and the articles sourced by wiki aren't true.

Facts rarely have much to do with these kind of matters.
Because science generally isn't based on facts, is it?

When you figure that much out, you have to take into consideration the political causes driving EACH position.
Sure, let's do that:

Common sense position: It isn't exactly a good idea to spew so much crap into a very delicate system - goodness knows what the consequences will be.

Anti-GW position (AKA Exxon-Mobil position): It'll hurt our economy too much. But yeah, we're doing something about it. Just don't ask us WHAT we're doing.

Your position: Lies! Greenies! COMMIES! BIG BROTHER! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Seriously...

Last edited by Spark (2007-03-21 02:33:17)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-03-21 02:36:33
some_random_panda
Flamesuit essential
+454|6819

theelviscerator wrote:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

When you figure that much out, you have to take into consideration the political causes driving EACH position.

Facts rarely have much to do with these kind of matters.

Global warming is not really about earth science as it is about politics and a push to a global one world government, where Big Brother has full control over all countries under its steel umbrella.

Look to Kyoto and tell me all the countries that have signed it, that are meeting the standards set in it.

Take Australia for example one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita and the home of some of the people arguing here.

If Kyoto is reducing GHG emissions so well why are we still going up?


If its not helping then why "should" it help?


This is mostly about politics and not science. End of Story.

socialism masked as green policies.
Sigh.  There are plenty of countries that have not ratified the Kyoto protocol.  Illegal land clearing in South America through burning releases thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide DAILY.  Australia has NOT ratified the Kyoto protocol (for reasons concerning no. of people per couple of thousand or something square kilometers).  Remember that Australia would be needing to cut back on Greenhouse gases far more than, for example, France, because it has a very small population to area ratio.  For heaven's sake, most of the land here is DESERT.  It might not be reducing C02 emissions by much, but it's certainly not adding to it.  Australia is one of the largest emitters of Greenhouse gasses per capita because WE HAVE A VERY SMALL POPULATION.  Think about it.  There are only so many factories you can squeeze into Germany, and Germany has a very large population.  There is unlimited space in Australia, and most of Australia is uninhabited.  Thus it would logically follow that the emissions per capita would be enormous.
(as a subnote, this is why the Kyoto Protocol favours small countries, and this ties nicely into the fact that yes, there are political interests involved.)

Please remember that statistics mean absolutely NOTHING.
2007-03-21 02:38:13
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7103|Canberra, AUS

some_random_panda wrote:

theelviscerator wrote:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

When you figure that much out, you have to take into consideration the political causes driving EACH position.

Facts rarely have much to do with these kind of matters.

Global warming is not really about earth science as it is about politics and a push to a global one world government, where Big Brother has full control over all countries under its steel umbrella.

Look to Kyoto and tell me all the countries that have signed it, that are meeting the standards set in it.

Take Australia for example one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita and the home of some of the people arguing here.

If Kyoto is reducing GHG emissions so well why are we still going up?


If its not helping then why "should" it help?


This is mostly about politics and not science. End of Story.

socialism masked as green policies.
Sigh.  There are plenty of countries that have not ratified the Kyoto protocol.  Illegal land clearing in South America through burning releases thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide DAILY.  Australia has NOT ratified the Kyoto protocol (for reasons concerning no. of people per couple of thousand or something square kilometers).  Remember that Australia would be needing to cut back on Greenhouse gases far more than, for example, France, because it has a very small population to area ratio.  For heaven's sake, most of the land here is DESERT.  It might not be reducing C02 emissions by much, but it's certainly not adding to it.  Australia is one of the largest emitters of Greenhouse gasses per capita because WE HAVE A VERY SMALL POPULATION.  Think about it.  There are only so many factories you can squeeze into Germany, and Germany has a very large population.  There is unlimited space in Australia, and most of Australia is uninhabited.  Thus it would logically follow that the emissions per capita would be enormous.
(as a subnote, this is why the Kyoto Protocol favours small countries, and this ties nicely into the fact that yes, there are political interests involved.)

Please remember that statistics mean absolutely NOTHING.
Don't bother arguing, it'll just drive you mad. More fun to sit back and watch the paranoia.

BTW, for the record I don't think Kyoto is a good solution either. It allows Australia's per capita emissions (already the 2nd highest in the world) to INCREASE - WTF kind of measure is that?

Last edited by Spark (2007-03-21 02:39:47)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-03-21 02:45:25
some_random_panda
Flamesuit essential
+454|6819

Lol@your sig - the red text.
2007-03-21 07:23:21
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7194|Cambridge (UK)

Spark wrote:

theelviscerator wrote:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

When you figure that much out, you have to take into consideration the political causes driving EACH position.

Facts rarely have much to do with these kind of matters.

Global warming is not really about earth science as it is about politics and a push to a global one world government, where Big Brother has full control over all countries under its steel umbrella.

Look to Kyoto and tell me all the countries that have signed it, that are meeting the standards set in it.

Take Australia for example one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita and the home of some of the people arguing here.

If Kyoto is reducing GHG emissions so well why are we still going up?


If its not helping then why "should" it help?


This is mostly about politics and not science. End of Story.

socialism masked as green policies.
Rofl, this is getting funny.

IT'S ALL LIES! THE EVIL GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL MOSTERS ARE COMING TO EAT US WITH "COMMON SENSE!"

I think we should ignore this guy from now.

Yet I'm still responding :/

Take Australia for example one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita and the home of some of the people arguing here.
No-one said we agreed with the government.

If Kyoto is reducing GHG emissions so well why are we still going up?
Maybe, because the world's biggest emitters aren't part of Kyoto? Anyway, it's not like it's meant to do anything on its own.

If its not helping then why "should" it help?
Huh?

Global warming is not really about earth science as it is about politics and a push to a global one world government, where Big Brother has full control over all countries under its steel umbrella.
Lol @ paranoia. Where on earth did you pull that from? Those things are as unrelated as apples and meteorites. Anyway, go to wikipedia and tell me that the peer-reviewed scientific articles there and the articles sourced by wiki aren't true.

Facts rarely have much to do with these kind of matters.
Because science generally isn't based on facts, is it? :/

When you figure that much out, you have to take into consideration the political causes driving EACH position.
Sure, let's do that:

Common sense position: It isn't exactly a good idea to spew so much crap into a very delicate system - goodness knows what the consequences will be.

Anti-GW position (AKA Exxon-Mobil position): It'll hurt our economy too much. But yeah, we're doing something about it. Just don't ask us WHAT we're doing.

Your position: Lies! Greenies! COMMIES! BIG BROTHER! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Seriously...
theelviscerator does make one good point - Spark you do need to do some growing up - the global warming bandwaggon does have far far more to do with politics and far far less to do with science than you appear to think.

Having said that, you're probably the most articulate and intelligent 14 year old that I have ever seen.
2007-03-21 07:28:08
topal63
. . .
+533|7146
The, not-so alter ego of ATG ego, theelviscerator doesn't make any good points.
2007-03-21 07:30:03
crimson_grunt
Shitty Disposition (apparently)
+214|7082|Teesside, UK

topal63 wrote:

The, not-so alter ego of ATG ego, theelviscerator doesn't make any good points.
Is that a guess or insider knowledge?  Cause i was convinced it was a joke account but couldn't think who it could be.
2007-03-21 07:39:11
herrr_smity
Member
+156|7056|space command ur anus
well if we implement these thing we will get a much better environment to live in and a much more healthy environment, but some of you seem to like to live in smog and industrial waste.
2007-03-21 07:53:02
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7194|Cambridge (UK)

topal63 wrote:

The, not-so alter ego of ATG ego, theelviscerator doesn't make any good points.
I did say one good point - the rest is rubbish. But that one point is a good one - to believe that the global warming debate is purely scientific is, unfortunately, naive. And that goes for both sides of the debate - pro and anti.
2007-03-21 09:40:42
topal63
. . .
+533|7146

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

The, not-so alter ego of ATG ego, theelviscerator doesn't make any good points.
I did say one good point - the rest is rubbish. But that one point is a good one - to believe that the global warming debate is purely scientific is, unfortunately, naive. And that goes for both sides of the debate - pro and anti.
You're talking to the wrong person (or suggesting something in error), I am apolitical, I could care less about any ignorant (and potentially unintentional) attempt to confuse the Science of Global Warming with the politicization (polarization; false dichotomy) of the issue... such considerations do not influence my opinion.

And anyways (you, or anyone else) suggesting that I am naïve, or that young spark is naïve - or theelviscerator suggesting it - is baseless crap. It doesn't matter who is openly, or vaguely, suggesting it - it is a baseless assumption / claim.

If it is an undirected general comment - ignore [that above].

Anyways, I am completely aware, of the difference in aspect in regards to, how this issue can be confused. You are (sort-of) naïve for suggesting naivety is at play here. The ATG-like (--->) theelviscerator is the one claiming unreasonably that it’s basically just a political one, and spark is simply asking a reasonable question (the topic of the thread). You’re cherry picking an idea that really isn’t there. I’d like to say you’re quoting out of context, but he never said anything reasonable. You’re assumption he made a “good point” exists only in your mind.

theelviscerator wrote:

Facts rarely have much to do with these kind of matters.

Global warming is not really about earth science as it is about politics and a push to a global one world government, where Big Brother has full control over all countries under its steel umbrella.

This is mostly about politics and not science. End of Story.

crimson_grunt wrote:

topal63 wrote:

The, not-so alter ego of ATG ego, theelviscerator doesn't make any good points.
Is that a guess or insider knowledge?  Cause i was convinced it was a joke account but couldn't think who it could be.
I am wondering if this (not an alter-ego; a) near duplication of ego (that of ATG) is in fact, well (--->) ATG. I am just wondering? I could be wrong. But the similarities are striking (IMO); and the join date, first post, etc; all seem to indicate, to me, that he was bored one night  - and simply was interested in viewing his opinion being directly backed up, well by another ATG type ego. Or maybe, that when he feels like he (ATG) would like to post with less restraint - he chooses this namesake to post with.

Consider the near-same phrasing, the near-same liberal-bashing clichés, the subject matter of interest, double line formatting, the occasional lower-case first letter of a sentence, etc. It is all near-identical to ATG (IMO).

I could be wrong. But if it isn’t ATG, it’s his ego-doppelganger, evil-twin, etc.

And yes it's a guess.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-21 13:36:37)

2007-03-21 14:16:17
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7194|Cambridge (UK)

topal63 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

The, not-so alter ego of ATG ego, theelviscerator doesn't make any good points.
I did say one good point - the rest is rubbish. But that one point is a good one - to believe that the global warming debate is purely scientific is, unfortunately, naive. And that goes for both sides of the debate - pro and anti.
You're talking to the wrong person (or suggesting something in error), I am apolitical, I could care less about any ignorant (and potentially unintentional) attempt to confuse the Science of Global Warming with the politicization (polarization; false dichotomy) of the issue... such considerations do not influence my opinion.

And anyways (you, or anyone else) suggesting that I am naïve, or that young spark is naïve - or theelviscerator suggesting it - is baseless crap. It doesn't matter who is openly, or vaguely, suggesting it - it is a baseless assumption / claim.

If it is an undirected general comment - ignore [that above].

Anyways, I am completely aware, of the difference in aspect in regards to, how this issue can be confused. You are (sort-of) naïve for suggesting naivety is at play here. The ATG-like (--->) theelviscerator is the one claiming unreasonably that it’s basically just a political one, and spark is simply asking a reasonable question (the topic of the thread). You’re cherry picking an idea that really isn’t there. I’d like to say you’re quoting out of context, but he never said anything reasonable. You’re assumption he made a “good point” exists only in your mind.
It was an undirected general comment. But, theelviscerator did make the same point that I made, maybe not in quite the words I used, but he/she/it did make it. I don't care whether it is ATG in disguise or not, it is a good point - there is a huge political element to the global warming debate - all debates involve politics - and to think that was not the case would be naive.
2007-03-21 22:18:48
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7103|Canberra, AUS

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Spark wrote:

theelviscerator wrote:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

When you figure that much out, you have to take into consideration the political causes driving EACH position.

Facts rarely have much to do with these kind of matters.

Global warming is not really about earth science as it is about politics and a push to a global one world government, where Big Brother has full control over all countries under its steel umbrella.

Look to Kyoto and tell me all the countries that have signed it, that are meeting the standards set in it.

Take Australia for example one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita and the home of some of the people arguing here.

If Kyoto is reducing GHG emissions so well why are we still going up?


If its not helping then why "should" it help?


This is mostly about politics and not science. End of Story.

socialism masked as green policies.
Rofl, this is getting funny.

IT'S ALL LIES! THE EVIL GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL MOSTERS ARE COMING TO EAT US WITH "COMMON SENSE!"

I think we should ignore this guy from now.

Yet I'm still responding

Take Australia for example one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita and the home of some of the people arguing here.
No-one said we agreed with the government.

If Kyoto is reducing GHG emissions so well why are we still going up?
Maybe, because the world's biggest emitters aren't part of Kyoto? Anyway, it's not like it's meant to do anything on its own.

If its not helping then why "should" it help?
Huh?

Global warming is not really about earth science as it is about politics and a push to a global one world government, where Big Brother has full control over all countries under its steel umbrella.
Lol @ paranoia. Where on earth did you pull that from? Those things are as unrelated as apples and meteorites. Anyway, go to wikipedia and tell me that the peer-reviewed scientific articles there and the articles sourced by wiki aren't true.

Facts rarely have much to do with these kind of matters.
Because science generally isn't based on facts, is it?

When you figure that much out, you have to take into consideration the political causes driving EACH position.
Sure, let's do that:

Common sense position: It isn't exactly a good idea to spew so much crap into a very delicate system - goodness knows what the consequences will be.

Anti-GW position (AKA Exxon-Mobil position): It'll hurt our economy too much. But yeah, we're doing something about it. Just don't ask us WHAT we're doing.

Your position: Lies! Greenies! COMMIES! BIG BROTHER! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Seriously...
theelviscerator does make one good point - Spark you do need to do some growing up - the global warming bandwaggon does have far far more to do with politics and far far less to do with science than you appear to think.

Having said that, you're probably the most articulate and intelligent 14 year old that I have ever seen.
That's true, but the politics is based on/aimed at the science.

Also, when science covers matters of national and global concern, then politics MUST be involved.

[sup]BTW I turned 15 over two months ago, so... er.... yeah.

Last edited by Spark (2007-03-21 22:20:12)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-03-21 22:28:06
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7194|Cambridge (UK)

Spark wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

theelviscerator does make one good point - Spark you do need to do some growing up - the global warming bandwaggon does have far far more to do with politics and far far less to do with science than you appear to think.

Having said that, you're probably the most articulate and intelligent 14 year old that I have ever seen.
That's true, but the politics is based on/aimed at the science.

Also, when science covers matters of national and global concern, then politics MUST be involved.
Politics is always involved. The science should be politically neutral, but it very rarely is.

Spark wrote:

BTW I turned 15 over two months ago, so... er.... yeah.
Congrats. I shall think of you as the most intelligent and articulated 15 year old I've ever seen from now on then...

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-03-21 22:29:06)

2007-03-22 08:47:47
theelviscerator
Member
+19|6717
Latests facts in  this debate.

If Al Gore got everything he wanted, the net effect would be a global temp drop of 7/100 of one degree in the next 50 years.

Cost 300 Billion dollars.


cost effective?

I think not.


Any of you guys want to fund it?
2007-03-22 09:25:40
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6959|The lunar module

theelviscerator wrote:

If Al Gore got everything he wanted, the net effect would be a global temp drop of 7/100 of one degree in the next 50 years.
Global temp drop? I don't think even Big Green Al can achieve results that dramatic, since the projected temp increase is about three degrees in 50 years.
2007-03-22 14:49:06
herrr_smity
Member
+156|7056|space command ur anus

theelviscerator wrote:

Latests facts in  this debate.

If Al Gore got everything he wanted, the net effect would be a global temp drop of 7/100 of one degree in the next 50 years.

Cost 300 Billion dollars.


cost effective?

I think not.


Any of you guys want to fund it?
but you have no problem spending twice that on a war machine ridiculously out of proportion
2007-03-23 03:46:18
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6833|North Carolina

theelviscerator wrote:

Latests facts in  this debate.

If Al Gore got everything he wanted, the net effect would be a global temp drop of 7/100 of one degree in the next 50 years.

Cost 300 Billion dollars.


cost effective?

I think not.


Any of you guys want to fund it?
The War in Iraq has exceeded $400 billion.  Cost effective, nope....

How about we just shrink the federal government, enter less war, and keep more of our own cash?

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-03-23 03:46:42)

2007-03-23 04:29:25
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7103|Canberra, AUS

theelviscerator wrote:

Latests facts in  this debate.

If Al Gore got everything he wanted, the net effect would be a global temp drop of 7/100 of one degree in the next 50 years.

Cost 300 Billion dollars.


cost effective?

I think not.


Any of you guys want to fund it?
Cost three hundred billion over fifty years. Gain: trillions upon trillions due to reduced risk of disasters and other climatic insanty, also due to technological advances.

BTW: Let's put it in perspective: Current world population = 6 billion. If the population doesn't grow at all (which of course it will, by a hell of a lot), all it takes is for each person to give about 83 cents a month. Is that really a huge investment?

Last edited by Spark (2007-03-23 04:31:44)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard