What I hope comes out of the Copenhagen climate meeting

Post Reply New Topic

actually, that part is entirely anti-Capitalistic propaganda.

and before you blame the "industries" and the feds of passing the responsibility down to us, just ask yourself this: who votes in the very feds who "pass the buck" down to us?

Government represents the people, whether the people want to admit/accept it or not...

It does sound far-fetched, but I've read that in news articles written by some surprisingly reputable sources (decent publications like AP and Reuters). Granted, they weren't necessarily endorsing that prediction, but one of them reported that as the latest and greatest prediction by climatologists a while back. Yet, the UK doesn't seem to be building Amsterdam-style dikes everywhere. Hm...

The Skin Cancer Foundation also recommends wearing sunscreen all over your face and body, every day--even under your clothing. This is in addition to wearing long sleeves and a wide-brimmed hat, and you're supposed to leave the house as little as possible. I'm serious--I read this one their website several months ago while researching the tanning bed controversy. They say all sorts of other crazy things too, i.e., if you get a bad sunburn before you hit puberty, you're 6 times more likely to get skin cancer, and this number increases sixfold with each sunburn. If these figures were even close to being true, would any of us stand a chance? Would there even be any point to caring?

I also discovered that there was a British study (circa 2008) claiming that, while increased sun exposure does increase your skin cancer risk, it also decreases the risk of developing every other kind of cancer because of the Vitamin D production. Yet, you never hear about this; all you ever hear about is how the sun (which humans have somehow managed to live with for millennia) is evil and wants to suck the life out of us.

Is this parallel to the global warming debate? Possibly. All I know is, just because "scientists" claim something doesn't make it true. (They are humans, after all, and they're just as vulnerable to ulterior motives as anybody else.) If something sounds outrageous and you can't find concrete data to back it up, don't assume.

As for "selfishness," I'm still pretty young. If I'm wrong, I'll be around to see it. But again--what can I do about it anyway? Why stress and feel guilty over something COMPLETELY beyond my control?

Don't even get me started on the U.S. Government's structure. The system is rigged from the ground up; "voting" is an illusion. What good is a vote when scumbags and idiots are the only people in the race? Just one of many reasons I've been looking over the FAQ's on the websites for the British and German consulates... (And by that I mean, I want to move.)

I'm irritated that more people don't comment about this.

It is claimed as science, yet it is more like a religion: here's our model, here is the data we chose to support it, here are people who are on our side, if you're against us you're a bad person obviously.

It's not so much that we're skeptical of global warming as it is that we're skeptical that we are the cause of it. As someone already said, the world has been steadily getting warmer, and consequently the oceans have been steadily rising, since the last ice age.

A book I would suggest reading is Michael Crichton's State of Fear. It is slightly over the top with the environmentalists acting as terrorists, but the research that he did on global warming appears to be pretty solid. He includes many charts and graphs which compare the gradual rise of global temperatures and sea levels with the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. At the end of the book, there are a ton of footnotes which list 172 books, which are the source of his information. He includes many things which most people don't take into consideration, such as urban heat islands (the fact that most cities register as having a higher temperature than their rural counterparts simply because the concrete and asphalt in a city traps heat within it, making it appear that the world is getting much warmer than it is, when it's really just the city in which the temperature is being recorded that is getting warmer). He also included evidence that while some glaciers are shrinking, others are in fact growing.

I think it's sad that he didn't live to see certain scientists exposed for perpetuating a "scam" which he got so much sh** for trying to expose in one of the last books he wrote.

So let me get this straight... You consider that the opinion and analysis of millions serious scientifics, from all around the world, with data coming from geological obeservation, meteorological obsevation, satellite observations, ecological observations, chemistry reactions, computer stimulation and so on... is a anti-capitalist propanganda from the govnerments because the govnerments follow the will of populations brainwashed by some kind of intellectual elite controlling the medias.... and you call that rational!! !

You're so much fed up in you're ideology that you refuse to see the true in front of you. No ideology is able to fully grasp reality. Ideology are a simplification of the reality, a simplification coming from the difficulty of the human brain to comprehend the reality. Sometime it's necessary to overlook it's ideological framework for see things for what they really are. (At least as close as we comprehend them as what they are.)



Because of the hardware limits and the lack of comprehension of some meteorological phenomenon, scientists must make choices in what they consider in their models. Still, the GIEC had worked multiple models from the best to the worst scenario possibles. So far the situation is even worst that had been predicted in they more pessimistic model. Of course, it's not say that some unknow phenomenon can reverse the situation in the futur, but we can't base long term politics on such a idea...

Better a waste of money and efforts while nothing happen, that not doing anything while the worst happen and had been predicted to happen.

You mentioned the masses being "brainwashed" by the media; the media are also people. People telling other people what they want to hear.

I'm not basing this on some belief that this is suddenly happening: this has pretty much been human routine for thousands and thousands of years.

Humans are emotional creatures with little imagination who get bored very easily. Back in the day, they didn't have as much time to get bored always working hard on a million different things; all the things that we have easily now they had to work twice as hard to get.

Whatever time they didn't do working though, they were eating spoiled food and taking in hallucinogenic plants and whatnot.

And all that time they've believed in the 15th coming of Jesus, or some other angry god that was not being treated well, or something.

It's just one of the scams of olden day, recycled for modern audiences/masses. Masses who want to be fooled so that they can believe in something, and feel that they matter, since they otherwise don't believe they do...and otherwise don't seem to do anything else overly productive with themselves...

The global warming thing is clearly a bunch of crap... There is actually a lot more evidence that there is no global warming than there is, you just don't see it as much. People should really pay more attention to V for Vendetta, there is truth to that. Scare tactics work, and PEOPLE let it. They make you fear for your life with things like global warming, swine flu, seasonal flu, terrorists, and whatever else they can conjure up.

Oh sure, you may think it is crazy, given most seem to deny that the media has any kind of "control". Yet, it is accepted en mass that politicans are liars and so is the media. I say THAT is what is crazy: to believe they are liars and then believe them anyways. Nice.

What about back in the 70s when they said the world was cooling?! Ice age! Ice age! They may try that again too. People who live in wonderland will jump right on that bandwagon too without even the slightest thought against it. Why, if it's on television, it MUST be true!

As for capitalism and scarce resources. The free market will determine that for us. In a REAL free market, prices on a scarce resource will get driven up, forcing us to fight alternatives and better solutions to problems because it woudn't be affordable with the now expensive scarce resource. How about that?

On regulation, that is a bad idea. Regulation is bad in an economy. Sure, banning net fishing COULD open more jobs, but what about the fact it would cost them more money to pull up fish? Prices could very well go up due to that fact. We currently have unhealthy things thrown into our food because of regulations making the healthier alternatives more expensive, like the price of sugar being artifically raised.

What needs to happen is any and all ideas of government just need to go POOF. If our costs of living were not rasied by 60% here in the US (that is 6 dollars for every 10 dollars you make! Or 60 for every 100! 600 for every 1000!! !), we could afford to actually, I don't know.. PAY for what services we desire. If we wanted to send our kids to school, we could PAY for it, rather than be taxed on it even if we don't have kids going there. Same goes for ANY government service. Private business is always more efficient, cost effective and overall better service, and it would have to be that way too if they wanted our money. Instead, everything is TAXED away from us and we have almost no choice in the matter. That was proven when they bailed out all those businesses despite most of the nation disagreeing.

Went a bit off subject, oh well!

Not only off subject, but over the top. (My opinion, of course.)

Regulation is necessary, but within reason. Contrary to what you said, a lack of regulation would only lead to worse health, among other things. You can't be in favor of a 100% laissez-faire market and simultaneously expect corporations to act in YOUR best interests. If they could save money by serving you potentially dangerous food, they'd do it. And you would have no choice but to keep buying it and consuming it, since cartels would be the norm. For instance: why do you think wireless carriers get away with crappy service and high prices? Because you have no alternative! This is an industry that needs regulation because it has a well-earned reputation of shady contract terms and shoddy service. And don't respond by saying that cell phones are optional in our modern, industrialized world- they aren't.

As much as I hate the US government specifically (and the vast majority of governments all over the world for that matter), the concept of a government in itself is a solid and necessary one- assuming, of course, that you want the country to be competitive and attractive. If we did away with public schools, do you honestly think that would help our country? Do you understand why public schools came into being in the first place? Completely privatized education would render most people even more ignorant and useless than they are today. People born into poverty- even genii - would be stuck there, with no chance of putting their minds to use. PERIOD. Meanwhile, people born into wealth- even the idiots- would remain at the top. This system would inevitably result in collapse, since less qualified people would have power whereas potentially qualified people would die in coal mines and other crap like that.

I realize that the public school system is a mess, but would a medieval system be better? For the chosen few, yes. For everybody else, no. For the world at large, no. FYI, Steve Jobs is a product of the public school system (and the California one at that, which sucks). He was also adopted. If things were your way, would he be where is today? No: he would have grown up shining shoes for aristocrats, and he likely would have died of his pancreatic cancer after having accomplished nothing. This is just ONE example of a genius who was given a chance by this "socialist evil" that is the (admittedly wasteful and messed up) public school system. Should the system be improved? Absolutely. Abolished? Hell no!

Ironically enough, Bill Gates was born into wealth and attended private schools, which further backs up my point: had it not been for Jobs starting (and later, resurrecting) Apple, we'd ALL be typing these messages on Windows computers running IE8 right now, regardless of our preferences. The rich guy would have gained a monopoly, and the poor guy would have been screwed. Both men are brilliant, and both deserve their respective places in history, but in your scary world, one of them would have been doomed from birth, and by design.

As for private business being more efficient... again, that's true, but for the benefit of the business- and sometimes, but not necessarily, for the consumer. I, for one, am unnerved at the growing trend of private prisons in this country. If these prisons have a financial incentive to incarcerate people, won't there be more "supply" (prisoners) to meet this "demand?"

Yes: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51B7B320090212

I think I can safely rest my case on that...

On a final note, I've gone to both public and private schools. One private school was great and helped prepare me for the future, another was illegitimate ("science" class consisted of memorizing Hebrew terms and learning about how the story of Noah and the Flood was allegedly "real" ), and the third one is currently under investigation for torture, sexual abuse, and wrongful imprisonment, among other things. Private industry can be good and bad- government oversight is needed to minimize the bad (using "bad" in the vaguest possible way).

You are partially wrong, but not where you might think good sir;

do I expect the majority of corporations to act within my best interests? No...I don't expect most humans too. However, you seem to be confusing capitalism with pseudo-capitalism, which is unfortunately the majority of what exists out there; it's the psuedo-capitalists you have a problem with, not the capitalists.

the problem lies here: regulations penalize everyone.

Why penalize the ones that are doing things right in the process of penalizing those who are doing things wrong?

Penalizing everybody is just implying that all businesses and corporations are just as bad as each other.

There is also a major problem with the majority of the rest of what you say as well:

one thing I notice in regards to a Socialist mindset is that one in that mindset cannot possibly picture anything outside of that mindset.

When one is suggested of the Laizze-Faire Capitalist principles, it is unfortunately immediately looked upon in the Socialistic scenario.

Now, tell me this: what is your problem with the rich? Yes, some folks are born into wealth, but others are not; many of them have earned what they have.

One thing very common that I hear often--and I usually hear it mostly from very emotional people, might I add--is complaints about the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer".

The latter I can definitely tell you is not entirely accurate; it's not that the poor actually get poorer; it's that the statistic for their "success" in the world actually seems lower because many of those who are poor and bust their asses for a living don't stay poor for that long. So after a while, that statistic only winds up representing the ones in the absolute most dour of poor shape...and also likely a lack of motivation for the poorest of the poor to do something about their situations.

Don't be angry about the "rich getting richer", cause there's nothing to be angry about. It's just people being more and more successful at what they do, which should be praised; it also doesn't always mean they stomp on others to get what they want. In many cases, they don't.

But to be fair dude...if you want to be mad at people for stomping on other people to get what they want, then look at the majority of humanity; that's pretty much society.

Y'can't specifically blame the rich for that one...unless of course you're jealous or something.

I one day myself hope to be in that higher income bracket

one other thing...how exactly does penalizing the rich make life better for the poor?

I mean...other than them feeling good for a few seconds with the "yeah, let's stick it to 'em" mentality?

After those few seconds are over, the poor are no better off--in many cases, even a lot worse off.

It seems to be more an emotional thing.

This is why I keep saying it's all just another scam like humans have been driving for thousands of years that everyone is more than happy just to jump on.

What still baffles me is how anyone here can so easily succumb to it; we're Autistic. Logic overpowers emotion for us....if we can have such a thorough discussion about whether or not Christ existed, where he would've existed and all that, then why is an argument like this turning into something I'd see if I were to turn on one of the mainstream news channels?

The whole thing--either way--is a massive scam about power, and who should have it.

And I'll say it again: people live by the golden rule. "Whoever has the gold makes the rules". I don't care what constitution or code of law you follow, that's how humans are.

Even Ted Dibiase himself said "Everybody's got a price..."

I hope no matter what happens, the carbon emission problems will be solved...

(sigh) just...why do I even bother....

Many wise men have asked themselves the same question.

So far the only satisfactory answer I've heard is "for the lulz". heh

...what's a "lulz"?

Learn your internet slang.

to quote Stone Cold Steve Austin "aw HELL no!"

I think mods should move this discussion to the news and current events forum because it has nothing to do with autism.

Also, that would spare those of us who are aware of the devastation that man-made climate change is already causing in many parts of the world the frustration of seeing this kind of ignorant discussion.