PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

This is obvious. (speaking for myself)

Stop cutting down rainforest, stop killing whales (shortest food cycle on the planet), stop dumping crap into the oceans - and stop creating un-recyclable materials, etc. etc.

So, when I put a windmill on my house, will I get tax deduction or have to BUY carbon 'credits'?

Greg

siriusbliss wrote: Stop cutting down rainforest, stop killing whales (shortest food cycle on the planet), stop dumping crap into the oceans - and stop creating un-recyclable materials, etc. etc.

This is what i was saying in my long post. These are the things we should be fixing, not so-called climate change. But you can't generate money from saving a whale so let's go to parties in Denmark and decide nothing.

valis wrote:And yet I'll bet you'd still like some forests to remain standing and drinking water to remain drinkable for more than just humans...huh gary

duh....


heck, i HAVE solar panels on my house and generate my own electricity. i drive my car on alternative fuels. it's not like there aren't PLENTY of resouces, though. the shortages are all caused by levels of greed that 95% of humans can't even dream of.

Mr Arkadin wrote:This is what i was saying in my long post. These are the things we should be fixing, not so-called climate change. But you can't generate money from saving a whale so let's go to parties in Denmark and decide nothing.

A lot of what you mentioned in your long post I've echoed here myself as well (in this thread and others.)

For instance your discussion on suddenly being more open to abiotic oil. I recall a slashdot thread about abiotic oil which mostly garnered 'lunatic science' responses from US & UK posters, and a few english-speaking ukranians posting up interesting thoughts. The response from 'our side' to these people sharing their different view was typically either one of ridicule or "but biological oil as a theory *works to find oil* there for it must *be true*".

The operative bits there are that "if the theory works" then it must "BE true", and the failure evident here is the word BE more than anything else, implying that it's got some ultimate quality that reveals the inner nature of the thing just because the model is useful to some degree. Again the bipolar reaction is evident, it must either be RIGHT or WRONG, in some absolute Platonic idealized sense. Not 'it works for this given set of circumstances' etc, which allows complexity & multiple descriptions to enter a discussion. Of course those seeking to CONTROL rather than dialogue/learn/share lose control--so allowing complex discussion doesn't fit well with those kinds of plans.

To be reduced to a squabbling mass of polarized amoebas either seeking pleasure/food/agreement or fleeing from challenging idea/threat/contradiction? Most people I think would hope not if given any thought. The hard part though is that when you have a discussion with people (or a person) who operate(s) closer to the amoeba state than they do Leary's 8th circuit, they do have a tendency to either draw you down to their level so to speak.

start taking your bets.

Thomas Malthus had charts and graphs showing that if population kept growing at it's present pace, England would starve to death by the mid 1800's and that there would be no land left to farm because there would be people everywhere. these same scenarios are played out to the public over and over.

that cartoon would be poingant if the whole idea weren't based on fake data, which by the way is te point of this thead, telling about the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit having it's email server hacked and damning emails showing that the data showing man-made global warming was manufactured because the real data didn't agree with the theory. there were also emails detailing how to discredit those wo would cal out that fake data as fake. the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit is the institution who's work is behind ALL global warming theories.

if the Earth becomes like Venus, it won't be because of CO2. that's the point, no need to tax or punish the public.

.

braincell, can you explain(in detail please) the meaning of "temperature anomoly"? how is that defined? how the hell is something like that graphed when there's never been an absolute "normal temperature"?

perhaps tha graph requires it's own thread, since this one documents the University of East Anglia's attempts to forge fake data....actually braincell, that graph you keep posting is obviously fake data in itself, so perhaps this IS the right thread for it...

Good point Gary ..the other thing is that "anomoly" seems to decline from 1940 to 1980 when you'd think the pace of industrialisation must have been going through the roof compared to pre WW2 times .

skwawks wrote:Good point Gary ..the other thing is that "anomoly" seems to decline from 1940 to 1980 when you'd think the pace of industrialisation must have been going through the roof compared to pre WW2 times .

elementary...

.

*yawn* BC whats your point again ?

he doesn't have one.

he has an opinion, but he can't justify it, except by saying that really, really smart people told him so and they know everything, so there! he doesn't even have the slightest idea how "temperature anomoly" is determined or what it means. he just sees a graph of a couple hundred years(which is a sample size of NOTHING in geological terms) that rises an assumes disaster. yes, if the temperature rises and never stops rising, we're doomed. fortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. maybe i'll make a fake graph to counter his fake graph.

ultimately, i think his real agenda in reposting that silly jpeg is to destroy all conversation that relates to the topic at hand, that th University of East Anglia, the compiler of the data which the whole world is using to prove man-made CO2 global warming, was caught red-handed fabricating that data. he acts like he has a stake in the farce, instead of someone who is most concerned with finding the truth. perhaps it has someting to do with government housing... ok, sorry, bc, but you're pretty fiesty with that fake graph of yours with it's ridiculous "temperature anomoly" axis...

.

Glaciers are actually growing...
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

G

..awaits same graph .

Some people just can't handle the truth.

QUICK run for it ...human driven Ice age

braincell wrote:.

I have to do this....
DOUCHE BAG...DOUCHE BAG....DOUCHE BAG ALERT!