Bush Hurricane Conspiracy

Well, regardless of whether CO2 contributes to global warming, I think a reduction of emissions is a good thing. CO2 emission is a good way to measure consumption of resources– and thus a measure of GNP.

I think a decrease in GNP is necessary for all nations for humanity to avoid crash and growth cycles (that is, if humans abide to them, and as animals in an ecosystem, they ought to). Why avoid crash and growth cycles? Because stability is better than instability. Instability leads to war, famine, plague and other apocalyptic horses. Except maybe wild beasts.

Perhaps we can survive with constant growth, but we cannot survive with constant material growth. Since CO2 output is a measure of growth (or at least consumption), a reduction in gross CO2 emission would mean a decrease in growth.

Wes, since when do you care about 1,000,000 people dying? Aren't you the kind of person who supports taking away food from starving people because it makes them "lazy?" Won't supporting their tearing down rainforests and destruction of ecosystems lead to ecological collapse and synthetic fertilizer dependency?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think we leave the level of proof required up to the individual. The more susceptible people are, or concerned about general welfare in the world, the more they will have a serious look at the cons of the arguments presented.

That bump is appearing on your arm. There is no proof that is has been appearing on peoples arms, except in legend. What's your answer then ?

What was dishonest about that quote? I fail to see any dishonesty in that quote..

Yeh most people clearly don't give a stuff. But then they don't feel all that threatened about it. As long as you are living a satisfactory lifestlye, that is all that counts , right ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This has been suggested for hundreds of years. If this suggestion was taken even 100 years ago you would likely be dead of an infection.

It's not a very good measure of growth as it depnds mostly on methods of production and not amount.

We could all quite happily have decided in 1530 to stop developing and to stop growing. We didn't do that because we had no reason to. That still stands.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The argument consists of
1) the world is getting hotter
2) we know that this happens once in a while on earth, but don't have good data on the past occurances
3) we have no idea what is causing it, but it might be us
4) we should worry about any regulate CO2 level, even though we have no basis for deciding what levels to regulate too

That's not the case here. We have core sames from ice which show this. we have disruptions in the rock bed. We have glacial landmarks.

The planet has gone through these 'bumps' before.

He says that 'people who study the carbon cycle feel that this increase is almost entirely due to humans'... when this is not the case. I could just as easily say "people who study the carbon cycle feel that this increase not due to humans". Both are supported by 'people who study the carbon cycle'.

You are missing the point. We don't produce CO2 just for kicks.

Yet you want us to regulate it even though you can't tell us it really matters, let alone how much it should be regulated.

 

We do have a basis for deciding what levels to regulate to in fact -- that's what the Kyoto protocol was worked out for.
The only non-cooperating countries in the world now are both the U.S. and Australia.
The current U.S. government has close ties to large energy companies. It is no surprise that the U.S. government pulled out of the agreement, it is in order to keep these people on top. Australia's current government is sucking up to the U.S. big time, it's no wonder we followed suite.

Indeed. However it remains to be proven whether or not we are augmenting this process. If we are in fact really speeding up this process (which may fully be confirmed in 30 years) then you will have to agree, we have been influencing the weather cycles. Many people would agree I'm sure that it's better to not influence the natural weather cycle if we can help it. Rather not interrupt it as much as possible and let nature run its own course independantly of our actions.

Perhaps that is an attitude bias, not many people are devoid of that property. So that's one guy giving his overall opinion. My overall opinion is that the agreement that was made in Kyoto was agreed by pretty much every country in the world. Remember there was a different government in the states at the time of those discussions in 1997. People have different level of senstivities to how much evidence they need to convince them, depending on personal desired outcomes that may play an effect in their lives somehow...

We don't produce CO2 for kicks, it is an overall requirement for us to get by in our day to day lives. Would you not admit that you would be a happier man if we where using proven non-desctructive energy sources? The way we're handling the oil is bad news man...

Kyoto agreement, check it.

 

Yes, Fema comes in whenever Bush declares a state a disaster area and then Fema is in control of all governmental forms, such as, martial law.

I think it is part elections and part control.

Remember, the very things that you think are not real, are. And the very things that you think cannot happen, do.

 

Global warming is a fallacy instituted by those in control to bring about revenue. Inspection stickers, emission fines and laws,etc. Check out the gases that are supposed to cause global warming, and you will find that vehicles do not emit it.

 

But who are these scientists working for? And how much are they getting paid? Enough money, as in Hitler and his supermen experiment, will change reports as many say--have money, will agree.

 

That a question you should be asking the anti-globalwarming people.

 

That's just funny really. What science are those levels based on?

The only 'western' countries....

I'd agree. I'd even agree that we do have an effect. Where I disagree is the assumption that the effect is large enough to worry about... as most scientists in the field will admit.

And scientists from every country stated that the numbers had no basis. It was a politically 'green' move... that was all.

Agreed... but not because of some unsupported assertion about us changing the weather. I'm much more worried that our kids' kids will be born with defects.

I've went though this already. The numbers are, AT BEST, guesses.

 

errrr, Scientist science ???

It was decided in the agreement that only "first world" countries would sign up. That is step one and logical. Part two of weening off developing countries would take place later obviously.. This would give these first world countries the incentive and the know-how to curtail any effects anyhow, and maintain the "first world" country view... Obviously this will do harm to many businesses but we should start to see a move from unfriendly environmental businesses to friendly environmental businesses that actively support and can manage to sell the right tools.

Where is your proof for "most scientists in the field will admit" ?
The proof is definitely out there that warning is happening.
The conceptual proof is out there that we can contribute to this warning.

Actually I would say it is a standard "non-George-Bush-funded-by-oil" interpretation.

There is no "without a doubt" proof on this occuring. That is obvious and nearly everyone will agree. Sure there are many other concerns besides Global Warming, but we should be tackling them all at once.

I think it's better to take action earlier than take action when "beyond doubt" evidence is around us........

Pffff. I think a lot of scientists would disagree with this assersion.

Anyway, this is getting way off topic here, this is the "pseudoscience" thread - the place where we are supposed to discuss conspiracies, aliens, ufo's, supernatural etc. I think it's absolutely the wrong section to have a serious conversation about this. How about somebody here starts a thread in a real scientific section of this board to continue this conversation with any level of seriousness ?

Oh by the way, I saw a map of florida the other day and it showed the paths of some of the cyclones and apparently it only hit the states that voted for Bush! How's that for coincidoink ! :shock:

 

Any numbers that are guessed are only done so because the real numbers are hidden from public view because of how disturbing they really are.

My basis is from a Landfill site that wouldn't output it's emissions publically because of its high levels of H<SUB>2</SUB>S which is poisonous in quantity.

 

No. They are simply guesses. That is it. Nobody has enough information to say if what we are doing really matters... let alone the limits that are needed.

Which is in itself pretty stupid. Anything that firstworld countries do is miniscule compared to when billions of 2nd and 3rd worlders start doing it.

Your very own links have said this.

I'm not arguing that we contribute... the argument is over how much. Once you leave the cities the difference seems to be miniscule compared to the natural variations in temperature.

Taking this stance does not help support your view any. At least try and pretend like you've read about global warming. Since you seem to think that scientists disagree:
http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html (15000 american scientists)
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/05/17/kyoto.shtml (russia's academy)

The very simple fact is that the science behind the Kyoto pack is absent.

No... we should be dealing with the ones we KNOW cause harm... some some fable of humans heating up the earth which is not supported by science.

Then please show me how the limits for the Kyoto agreement were arrived at? The limits are guesses... that is all.

LMAO. That'll teach em!

There is a major difference here. A landfill is private and can be measured (and has been in the past). The planet's data is public and somewhat difficult to hide. It is just that there isn't the data to support this, and the field is too big to hide it.

 

Hey Persol,

Here is a link for you ... An article which is a perspective on the scientist who spearheaded the anti-global warming brigade.

Honestly, would you trust this guy, Mr. Robinson after reading that article????
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html

Where did I get this info from you may ask ?

Check this :
In 1998 more than 15,000 scientists protested the Kyoto Accord
because they were highly sceptical of the science underlying the
idea of global warming.
You can read it at http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html



Cheers,
D

 

according to that Robinson's report he tends to neglect that plants use "Photosynthesis" to convert CO<SUB>2</SUB> into both food source for the planet and of course the output of O<SUB>2</SUB>.

The reason I mention this is if we kick up into the atmosphere CO<SUB>2</SUB> and all the other varients of gases and chemicals, we are going to be increasing the density of the atmosphere which means the photonic energy from the sun will be lessened, in turn reducing the level at which the plants respond to CO<SUB>2</SUB> from "the sun being blocked out".

You are of course right about his overall trustworthiness, considering he was one of these doctors of spin that convinced everyone that the Y2K Bug was pretty much going to bring the world to a standstill, yet the world keeps turning.

Notibly also that these Anti-Global Warming papers are six or more years old, alot of measurements and experiments have been done since then. I would still suggest that pollution will cause climate and weather changes, I couldn't say if it warmed or cooled (although blocking the sun out is definitely a way to cool). Pollution as a whole is bad though, some might be absorbed into plant life, or move into bodies of water while the rest we have to breath in, emission controls aren't just about the planet they are about our health too.

I know it could be suggested that health is big business in the USA considering the way the service over there I believe is run, however does making big bucks off of people being sick overthrow the potentially of lowering the numbers of sick through lowering emissions?

 

I'm confused as to why you post a link that apparently undermines everything you said in this thread. Were you "just kidding" or something? Have you changed your mind, or do you not find that site credible?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I can post kook sites that support global warming... that doesn't disprove your point. Likewise, your kook doesn't disprove me point.

 

Lol, I told him that link about a week ago.

 

"your kook doesn't disprove me point."

*donns eye patch*

yarrrrrrrrrgh matey! yer point's still afloat. me timbers are shiv'rin. Yarrrrr.

 

Not quite sure I got the joke, but that made it funnier

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

edit: Nevermind. My after-work grammer suffers.