Snow in june...in Hawaii...
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
But who's gonna volunteer to be the other half?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #63
It always gets back to...removing...a certain number of undesirables to make the system work. If you look at the environmental movement there is a distinct anti-people aspect to it that tends to be in all lefty leaning movements.
The problem Tez, is if it is a natural occurring cycle, there is nothing that we can do either way. However, if you can convince people that the natural occurring cycle is manmade, that gives you power. You can take peoples money, you can order them around, and all in the name of "saving the planet." the politicians will be taking freedom away from people based on a hoax.
The problem Tez, is if it is a natural occurring cycle, there is nothing that we can do either way. However, if you can convince people that the natural occurring cycle is manmade, that gives you power. You can take peoples money, you can order them around, and all in the name of "saving the planet." the politicians will be taking freedom away from people based on a hoax.
Sensei Payne
Black Belt
The fallacy in your logic is that it's either natural or manmade.
It is both. Climate change is a natturally occuring cycle. However, to pretend that our industrial economy and population load has not influenced the current cycle is absurd.
Sensei Payne
Black Belt
Bollocks! You have such a poor opionion of people who don't think as you do you insult their intelligence. Whether the problem is natural or man made there is no doubt we need to control the pollution on this planet becuase if we don't this planet will be hell to live on, in some places it already is.
http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEM340NKPZD_index_0.html
http://www.wildlifetrust.org.uk/facts/rivers.htm
That's just a very small sample, there's the dumping of radio active waste, emmisions from factories etc etc.
Your obsession with the left blinds you to common sense, if we mess this planet up we should clean it up.
However you will find that the right wing groups are now embracing the evironmentalist movement though predictably some American right wing groups blame the Jews and blacks for the problems! it doesn't actually make pleasant reading and confirms what many think about the 'right wingers'.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6393/is_2_15/ai_n28770692/
"Right-wing Ecology in the US
In the US, right-wing ecological ideas have found expression in the writings of various parties, groups, and thinkers of the Radical Right. This is perhaps not surprising, since the US has had its own tradition of nature-and-nationalism'
For some pioneering American environmentalists of the late-19th century, environmentalist Madison Grant's call for the protection of the white race or the European legacy was synonymous with environmental protection. The preservation of raw nature in this discourse came to symbolize escape from the pollution of fast-growing polycultural urban areas.
Like their German and French counterparts, Radical Right activists in the US today, have modernized this discourse. Tom Metzger's neo-Nazi White Aryan Resistance (WAR) has blamed Jews, Blacks and nonwhite immigrants for the continued destruction of the American environment. In WAR's publications, Metzger has argued that the science of ecology teaches that human beings are not a separate entity from nature.
Meztger's group has argued that the defense of native species from foreign intruders within an eco-system also applies to human beings and their ecological niches within an eco-system. Metzger has pleaded for a US-style apartheid as the only solution to the pollution of both the natural and the social environment.
Meanwhile, the Radical Right, anti-immigration American Renaissance has reviewed favorably books by authors Peter Brimelow (Alien Nation: Immigration and the American Identity and Importing Revolution) and Garret Hardin (Living Within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos) that argue against nonculturally European immigration into the US. According to American Renaissance, protecting the US environment requires the defense of the European heritage against non-white "hordes" coming from Central America and Africa. The September-October issue of American Renaissance magazine argues that environmental protection requires the separation of distinct cultures: "True diversity requires separation rather than amalgamation?'
Rightwing ecological ideas also have found expression in the writings and public statements of former Ku Klux Klan leader and Louisiana gubernatorial candidate David Duke. Along with the expected diatribes against political elites, multiculturalism, and affirmative action, Duke has written that his goal is to "preserve the unique character and beauty of my people the same way that, as an ecology-minded individual, I desire the preservation of the Blue Whale or the great African Elephant." Duke's political program calls specifically for limiting immigration in the name of environmental protection."
The world is not made up of 'bad' left wingers' and 'good' right wingers, to believe it does is to close your eyes to the real world and to the very real problems we face.
One should be very careful about assuming who is left wing here and who isn't, I've never voted socialist in my life and am not in the least left wing though you obviosuly think I am which in itself shows what little knowledge some have of the nature of people's political beliefs.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
qft :asian:
what has not been proven, that the planet goes through cycles of climate changes or that 6.7 billion people consuming resources and dumping chemicals in the air, water and ground has no effet on those cycles?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #70
Well Tez, it does not surprise me that lefty national socialists in this country wether with swastikas or white sheets have embraced the environmental movement. It is an way to access power. And yes, they are lefties not righties, as american rightyness goes, because they want to violate the founding documents of this country and use the power of the state to discriminate against other groups. The "right" in america does not believe in putting people into groups, believes in individual rights and freedom, a small central government incapable of showing favor or hostility to specific groups and that low taxes is one way to reduce the power to discriminate against others.
The right also believes that LEGAL immigration is one of the greatest strengths of this country. We love the best and brightest the world has to offer to come here and make this country bigger and stronger.
What is always interesting is when some people attack conservatives by saying they want pollution and dirty air and water and smog. Where exactly is the logic in that? You know we live in the same areas, drink the same water, eat the same food, and raise our children in the same places as the left.
Conservatives simply realize that places that are wealthy and prosperous are cleaner, safer and are nicer places to live in. Look around the world. Nations that have followed the most extreme left wing policies are the dirtiest and most unsafe.
The world is made up of bad "lefties," look at Germany, Italy, Russia, China, cambodia, cuba...and misguided lefties, which includes Obama and the democrats in this country.
The right also believes that LEGAL immigration is one of the greatest strengths of this country. We love the best and brightest the world has to offer to come here and make this country bigger and stronger.
What is always interesting is when some people attack conservatives by saying they want pollution and dirty air and water and smog. Where exactly is the logic in that? You know we live in the same areas, drink the same water, eat the same food, and raise our children in the same places as the left.
Conservatives simply realize that places that are wealthy and prosperous are cleaner, safer and are nicer places to live in. Look around the world. Nations that have followed the most extreme left wing policies are the dirtiest and most unsafe.
The world is made up of bad "lefties," look at Germany, Italy, Russia, China, cambodia, cuba...and misguided lefties, which includes Obama and the democrats in this country.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #71
Well, the sun, the oceans, and volcanos, are the three principle motivators in pollution and climate change on a global scale, just where man fits in, if at all, ...yet...remains to be seen. But when you have the man made global warming scientists and activists just saying... "the debate is over, do as we say you stupid morons..." and then to show how confident they are they destroy data and try to smear anyone who raises a hand and asks the question..."But...is your data really accurate, is it possible there might be some errors in your research..." That is where we are now. We do not know if man is having any effect. To say we are is really silly, because so far it cannot be proven.
I bet you are really good at playing Twister as you seem to be able to twist everything around to suit your views even when all historical evidence goes against you.
I'd be interested how you reconcile your theory about socilist countries being dirty and unsafe places to live with Switzerland, the socilaist party is the second biggest in their Coalition government and many of the government policies are socialist. It's the cleanest place in Europe possibly the world, it's safe, rich and the countryside is preserved, they don't even have electric pylons or telegraph poles, it's all underground, the country is immaculate.
Norway
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/05/14/norways-success-in-socialism-has-me-turning-red-with-envy/
Try Finland too, I could go on but you won't see it you will state they are 'rightist'. You can state that the Nazis are 'left' all you want, you can think the Dalai Lama is a Marxist, that there is no global warming and we could agree with you BUT then we'd all be wrong!
Stating something is so doesn't make it so, however much you wish things were as you said, historical evidence, economical evidence, the evidence of our own eyes tells us you are wrong.
Your ability too to twist arguments around does you credit, no one has said right wingers want to pollute the planet, the accusation against them is that they are ignoring the pollution problem.
The real sadness however is that you have chosen to not see the dangers posed to your country by the extreme right wing wish for totalitarism. It will creep up on you and you won't see it until it is too late. Your ilk will be so busy 'guarding' against communists and reds under the beds that the right wing extremeists will come and take your country from under your feet, you will be busy applauding all those anti leftist measures that you won't see your own freedoms eroded and taken away. Your eyes will be so focused on the faux leftists that the right wing who will tell you it's for the countries good that they ban free speech ( well they don't want leftists corrupting youth now do they?), that they ban travel ( to stop the left spreading) etc etc. Learn from history, don't twist it to suit your thoughts, it will come and bite your head off if you don't open your mind and eyes to what's really going on in the world.
Sensei Payne
Black Belt
There has been NO EVIDENCE to link the two.
if you put a graph side by side with the amount of emissions and the warming trend...you will see that it is steadily getting warmer...
If you can, check out the "Pen and Teller: BS" Episode..a whole lot of good info on there.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
There is no evidence that you and others like you can understand.
As I've repeated in this post, and elsewhere, there is ample evidence:
Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or dD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered . The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to about 420,000 years.
The strong correlation between atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and Antarctic temperature is confirmed by the extension of the Vostok ice-core record. From the extended Vostok record, scientists have concluded that present-day atmospheric burdens of carbon dioxide and methane seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. Temperature variations estimated from deuterium were similar for the last two glacial periods.
At any rate, this method of reassembling the historic climate changes is considered to be accurate (isotopes don't lie, the government does!) to within plus or minus 5%.
To make all that above short-there is incontrovertible evidence that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is higher than it's been in close to half a million years. It's been that high before, and the planet was even warmer then (on a whole) than it is now.
The evidence from the last century pretty much indicates that the global mean temperature is rising. Again, the issue of why it is is the one that has become, for a variety of reasons, politicized by both sides of the debate.
However:
This report, from the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that:
Quote:
recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."
A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.
The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.
In response, the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's trade group (some of those willful capitalist polluters who have been really trying hard to say that "there is no global warming," since one of the principal causes, if not the principal cause is thought to be their profit..er..product) said:
Quote:
While consensus on climate change remains a work in progress, we do know enough to take the risk seriously and to rule out inaction as an option".
Additionally, Science magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003 and found that not a single one challenged the consensus that earth's temperature is rising due to human activity. While there are scientific papers that do so, they are not "peer-reviewed" which is the simple gold standard of scientific publishing. Of course, one could attribute this to some sort of liberal-biased science community anti-capitalist conspiracy.
However...
We all know and have seen that the polar ice caps are melting at, as far as we know, unprecedented rates, whatever the cause (though we can be pretty certain that they have been smaller, and even non existent in the past). In addition to being one of the drivers of the world's climate due to thermal driving of the world's ocean currents, the polar ice also plays a fundamental role in reflecting a majority of the sunlight directed towards earth, thus ensuring that the earth's atmosphere didn't reach higher temperatures. (At most times of the year, one of the poles of the planet are the part that is pointed most directly at the sun). This melting process is pernicious: as the poles melt, they reflect less sunlight, the earth's atmosphere and ocean's absorb more heat, the poles melt more and continue to reflect less and less. Addtionally, the added cold fresh water to the oceans may well effect the thermal conveyor currents that drive our climate, as these currents are effected by differential temperature and salinity.
Short term effects we're seeing right now: species of wildflowers are dying off-becoming extinct, as mountain meadows convert into high desert. Species of bees are dying off, possibly becoming extinct, because the flowers they depend upon are going away. Pollination of crops is effected by the lack of bee species. Additionally, there are some "good effects": corn crops came in earlier this year and last, and in Pueblo, Colorado they actually got two harvests. Melons can be grown in areas where the season was previously too short.
Longer term effects-I dunno, I'm just a scientist, and not a meteorologist or biologist...hell, I'm a knuckle-dragging engineer-an over educated technician, really..
One thing, for sure, they won't effect most of us, if there are any-they'll effect our kids and grandkids.
Of course, by the time our grandkids are adults, the world may be burning something else, either because we've come up with something else, or we've run out of oil., and thus, the ability to mine coal.....
Wood and dung, perhaps.
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #76
Tiny countries that spend very little for their own defense? Must be nice. Then add large multicultural populations and 300 million people from countries around the world. Hmmm...let's see how they handle that.
That info. you posted Elder, was that before or after the revelations of the climate gate scandal?
That info. you posted Elder, was that before or after the revelations of the climate gate scandal?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #77
Tez, apparently the Dali Lama calls himself a marxist, not me. I just think someone should sit him down and explain the nightmare that marxism unleashes when people say they want to implement it.
Three distinguished PH.D's in economics say that nazis are socialists and lefties, one of them a nobel prizewinning economist, not just me.
Three distinguished PH.D's in economics say that nazis are socialists and lefties, one of them a nobel prizewinning economist, not just me.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #78
And about climate-gate over here and Dr. Hansen...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20110621.DC23925&show_article=1
From the article:
WASHINGTON, June 21, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- American Tradition Institute's Environmental Law Center today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia to force the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to release ethics records for taxpayer-funded global warming activist Dr. James Hansen - specifically records that pertain to his outside employment, revenue generation, and advocacy activities.
ATI seeks to learn whether NASA approved Hansen's outside employment, which public financial disclosures and other documents reveal to have brought him at least $1.2 million in the past four years. This money comes in addition to - and, more troubling from an ethics and legal perspective, is all related to - his taxpayer-funded employment. Dr. Hansen's outside employment commenced when he increased his "global warming" activism from his perch at NASA.
On January 19, ATI filed a Freedom of Information Act request (http://www.americantraditioninstitute.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/03/ATI_NASA_Hansen_Ethics_FOIA.pdf) with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which sought records detailing NASA's and Hansen's compliance with applicable federal ethics and financial disclosure laws and regulations, and with NASA Rules of Behavior. Thus far the agency has denied ATI's request for Hansen's Form 17-60s ("Application for permission for outside employment and other activity"), and ATI's request for records of internal discussions about it.
..................................
Why would a scientist fudge data....?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20110621.DC23925&show_article=1
From the article:
WASHINGTON, June 21, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- American Tradition Institute's Environmental Law Center today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia to force the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to release ethics records for taxpayer-funded global warming activist Dr. James Hansen - specifically records that pertain to his outside employment, revenue generation, and advocacy activities.
ATI seeks to learn whether NASA approved Hansen's outside employment, which public financial disclosures and other documents reveal to have brought him at least $1.2 million in the past four years. This money comes in addition to - and, more troubling from an ethics and legal perspective, is all related to - his taxpayer-funded employment. Dr. Hansen's outside employment commenced when he increased his "global warming" activism from his perch at NASA.
On January 19, ATI filed a Freedom of Information Act request (http://www.americantraditioninstitute.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/03/ATI_NASA_Hansen_Ethics_FOIA.pdf) with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which sought records detailing NASA's and Hansen's compliance with applicable federal ethics and financial disclosure laws and regulations, and with NASA Rules of Behavior. Thus far the agency has denied ATI's request for Hansen's Form 17-60s ("Application for permission for outside employment and other activity"), and ATI's request for records of internal discussions about it.
..................................
Why would a scientist fudge data....?
Here's one of the leading experts on German history, Prof. Richard J Evans, Regius Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge and what he says about Hitler.
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/hitler-and-the-origins-of-the-war-1919-1939
"But Adolf Hitler was different. He came from the extreme right-wing fringe of German and Austrian politics. Reacting to Germany's defeat in the First World War, and generalizing from his experience in the multi-ethnic Habsburg Monarchy before then, he saw world history and international relations essentially as a Darwinian struggle between races - Aryans, Latins, Slavs, Anglo-Saxons and so on - for the survival of the fittest."
I'm sure your experts are very good economists but they aren't historians, they aren't political scientists or even anthropologists so anything they have to say outside their subject is just an opinion not expert testimony. I have a subject I'm actually considered an expert on but knowing that subject doesn't automatically make me an expert on all other subjects.
Look at Professor Evans CV (it's impressive) and tell me this man doesn't know his subject better than a couple of economists!
http://www.richardjevans.com/productservice.php?productserviceid=559
On the subject of the Dalai Lama, there's nothing wrong with Marxist as such except it has been used as a 'cover' for dictators. The system itself cannot be evil or non evil, it's just a system. Humans however can be evil or good under any system.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #80
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id10.html
On hitlers economic policies that made him a socialist...
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system
...........................................
Perhaps economists would know something about an economic system?
From the article:
Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:
also: from Rudy (R.J.) Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science.
http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
ussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
On hitlers economic policies that made him a socialist...
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system
...........................................
Perhaps economists would know something about an economic system?
From the article:
Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:
"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."
(Source: Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1939.)
Summary: Below is a short economic analysis of German Economy under the Nazis. It is apparent they ran a centralized collectivist economy just like the Soviet Union. It was a political party that acted much in the same way the American Left does in regard to unemployment and trying to use the government to decrease it. It notes that the Nazis used public works to a large extent, which is exceedingly leftist, and put people to work for the State....
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]The Nazis started enacting other leftist ploys like price freezes and starting expanding the role of the government and destroying any freedom left in the Market. Private Property owners were dictated to by the State. Clearly Nazis were opponents of capitalism through and through. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][/FONT](Source: Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1939.)
Summary: Below is a short economic analysis of German Economy under the Nazis. It is apparent they ran a centralized collectivist economy just like the Soviet Union. It was a political party that acted much in the same way the American Left does in regard to unemployment and trying to use the government to decrease it. It notes that the Nazis used public works to a large extent, which is exceedingly leftist, and put people to work for the State....
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]The Nazis started enacting other leftist ploys like price freezes and starting expanding the role of the government and destroying any freedom left in the Market. Private Property owners were dictated to by the State. Clearly Nazis were opponents of capitalism through and through. [/FONT]
also: from Rudy (R.J.) Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science.
http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
ussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
