Probably a few years after we destroy our economy and the world is much less free, we will discover we are cooling and that CO2 had nothing to do with warming or cooling.
I wonder if oil hits $200 ... if perhaps there will be a campaign issue about opening up ANWR or our many off shore sites for drilling. Maybe coal won't need to be perfectly pure. Maybe nuke reactors will be OK.
The Gorebots have gotten their votes with the global warming scare ... what happens is evidence shows we have not warmed for a decade, and gas at the pump is $5.50? Perhaps people won't think these fairy tales from the left need to be put ahead of our lifestyle.
Wow Ron and Rhino, you two are geniuses. The words "climate change" pops up, and you instantly pull out your dunce hats and political soapboxes and start spewing B.S. because two keywords you have been brainwashed to think a certain way about triggers your programmed thought patterns, and ends up polluting the internet (which you are able to use in a large part due to Al Gore taking an active interest in and lead the way in funding it) with trash.
For those of you that might have a clue but not understand all the way, the words "climate change" basically mean when a climate is going through a change. The "El Niño" weather pattern, for example, is a type of climate change, but is not man-made. Our pollution, however, has caused what is called "anthropomorphic climate change" which is about as accepted by modern science as the effects of gravity are. Unfortunately, big polluter corporations, some bribed "scientists" (who never publish anything in a peer-reviewed format for others to verify), and corrupt/delusional politicians try to make you think that we really can't pollute the environment. So don't let people like Ron and rhino tell you what to believe, because quite simply they are representing the far right, which is completely delusional. Even George W. Bush, who is pro-business and anti-science, says that anthropomorphic climate change is real.
... and the fact that they portray environmentalism as a form of Marxism really escapes me. ... Like Karl Marx really wrote about how the proletariat would make the economy more green by overthrowing the (please pardon my pathetic French spelling) bourgeoisie capitalist running dogs? (Why can't the French spell like the English? )
Why, if you look _really_ close, you should be able to see the image of Karl Marx (or is it V.I. Lenin?) in the big red cloud.
(Kinda like that image of that alien peeping into that guy's window. )
Our pollution, however, has caused what is called "anthropomorphic climate change" which is about as accepted by modern science as the effects of gravity are.
The term was global warming, changed because we have not been warming for ten years or so.
The climate has gone through much greater swings before man was polluting. And the point that apparently has escaped pmosh is that Jupiter is going through the same changes. So the question should arise, how does man made pollution cause warming on Jupiter?
Politician Gore said the science is settled. The science is certainly not settled. His movie is full of errors, yet the average dunce walks away full of spunk, and ready to talk down anyone that has actually studied the subject. You may have noticed the far left trend to produce propaganda movies lately.
Pmosh's statements on the science are as reasonable as his other outlandish statements about Ron and me.
Oh, and the "pollution" that supposedly causes warming has not been shown to be a cause at all. There are no known ill effects of more CO2, greenhouses often increase CO2 to help things grow better.
Garth, I don't know who the "they" is that you refer to. But it seems clear that Gore is a Democrat leader, and he was politically motivated to make his movie and push this agenda. Cataclysm makes for good TV ... so this end of the world theme is good for their bottom line. Now reducing our carbon footprint has become hip, and you are like so square if you contend the science is not settled.
There has been a one degree rise over the last 100 years ... and basically nothing in the last ten. Yet people will swear they can tell the difference ... it is amazing how many times I hear people bring up global warming as the cause for this or that ... fortunately this latest bill will probably fail for now.
As currently written, Lieberman-Warner might fall short of a 50-vote majority in the Senate, let alone the 60 votes required to close debate, insiders say. Presidential candidates (and Senators) Clinton, McCain and Obama all support climate-change legislation.
So even though a Democrat senate is against it, all presidential candidates have to be for it. It is politically incorrect to even hint that "the science is not settled".
Also you see the cut throat nature of business. If coal companies have to raise their rates, do you think the nuclear plants will not raise theirs? Plus they'll be able to produce more I'd guess.
"In the long run,
you
want people who burn carbon to pay more," says John Rowe, the CEO of Exelon, the nation's biggest generator of nuclear power. Still, even Rowe worries that the economy could be shocked if the cost of emitting carbon dioxide rises too quickly
He really means his company wants his competition to pay more. I don't want the coal burners to pay more for pumping out CO2. It helps my soybeans grow better, and doesn't hurt a thing.
Dmiller- were you under the opinion that global climate change if true, would manifest its affects suddenly? Like all at once this year? I don't think even the staunchest proponents of climate change ever suggested such a thing. If the fact of whether your tree blooms early or late this year is what you base your comment of "BS" upon, then you perhaps do not understand the concerns which many around the world are discussing.
Oh,for what it is worth, my flowers are out early, my trees leafed out late, and the golfcourse greens were damaged by the dry windy winter. Oh, those observations of mine are not worth anything either. The argument for global climate change (global warming in some areas, cooling in others) is looking at long term trends not isolated anecdotes of a particular tree, flower or a bunion on someone's foot.
Dmiller- were you under the opinion that global climate change if true, would manifest its affects suddenly? Like all at once this year? I don't think even the staunchest proponents of climate change ever suggested such a thing. If the fact of whether your tree blooms early or late this year is what you base your comment of "BS" upon, then you perhaps do not understand the concerns which many around the world are discussing.
Oh, for what it is worth, my flowers are out early, my trees leafed out late, and the golfcourse greens were damaged by the dry windy winter. Oh, those observations of mine are not worth anything either. The argument for global climate change (global warming in some areas, cooling in others) is looking at long term trends not isolated anecdotes of a particular tree, flower or a bunion on someone's foot.
~HAP
Hap --- let it go. You and I will never agree about this, OK???? I disagree with RumRunner too.
And --- my thinking will never match up with yours (or his), concerning envirionmental stuff.
I see a whole lot of "liberal" spin to this whole issue. Maybe you don't, but I do.
You and I are about the same age. I remember VIVIDLY being taught about "global cooling",
back in the 1960's in high school. Perhaps you had the same lessons.
I was being facetious (tongue in cheek if you will) about this year, and the blossoms on the one tree in my back yard that should have bloomed at least a month ago, but didn't. Even some of the local radio station folks were commenting on the *Late Summer* this year. You know --- there is (many times) here in Duluth a 30 degree difference in temperature from my place down here by the shore of Lake Superior, and up over the hill. It can be (and frequently is) somewhere around 65 degrees here at my house, and 4 miles away (over the hill by the airport) it is 90 degrees, the same day.
Yea -- I understand that discussions go on all over the world. So what?? Honestly?
Every last discussion is "slanted" (the same as this one here), and I have to ask:
What's accomplished by it?? Nothing. More rhetoric given the participant's viewpoint.
Nothing more, nothing less. Just like your's and my viewpoints on this subject.
So --- ignore anything I had to say. I guess my opinion's (observations) don't count.
Sorry I interrupted your posting time, by saying what I did.
Hap --- let it go. You and I will never agree about this, OK???? I disagree with RumRunner too.
And --- my thinking will never match up with yours (or his), concerning envirionmental stuff.
So --- ignore anything I had to say. I guess my opinion's (observations) don't count.
Sorry I interrupted your posting time, by saying what I did.
Odd comment DM - I am not a liberal - nor conservative - I am a scientist, with almost 30 years of study on this and related issues, and do my absolute best to not let politics or public opinion count. (NO you did NOT make any comment about politics - I did.) Since I have not posted on this thread I presume you refer to earlier posts - which I am not at all interested in resurrecting. I quit posting on anything to do with this topic some time ago - too polarized. I will not post anything on planetary climate change in this thread either. BTW - I do not ignore anything people say - nor will I ignore your post. I will read them and most likely not comment - but I will still read them and will not downplay your opinion(s) and/or observations(s). That would be fallacious science.
So with all due respect - please leave me/my screen name out of future discussions on the issues of climate change - no longer interested in posting on that topic here - and certainly not interested in imposing any of my studies on others here. Just as a side note - if you read previous posts I made you will see I did not present (to the best of my knowledge) any polarized views on the topic - to which you are free to make fun of me with the quote "Sir I can neither confirm nor deny..."
Summary - you asked Hap to "let it go." I ask for the same courtesy from you. This response is in NO way meant to be inflammatory - I just don't want to discuss the issue on these forums anymore.
David, I apologize, I did not take your post as being tongue-in-cheek. I took it as you saying that because of trees blooming (I didn't know if this was early or late for them) that this was evidence of the theory being BS. Apparently this is not what you meant. Again, sorry.
Of course your opinion counts,and if you do not wish to give reasons for your opinion that is fine too. I had not intended to post to this thread as the subject has been talked to death here, but I mistakenly THOUGHT you were raising a new view I had not heard and was seeking clarification.
I think no ill towards you David and did not intend to imply such.
Thanks DM - but I most certainly NEVER hope to be in a position where my wish is someone's command. Nonetheless thank you for your consideration of my response.
well... global warming/global climate change (whichever term you prefer) is still a manufactured crisis...
it's nothing but another step toward global control of earth's population and resources...
at the UN conference in bali last year,
A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference.
“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” said Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate.
Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”
The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.
The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner.
Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide."
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."
HOW TRUE!
this is not about the environment; it is about global control!
further, al gore has made it into a religion...
upon receiving his 2007 nobel peace prize, gore said:
"We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."
uh, no, mr. gore, this is NOT one of my spiritual challenges...
the manufactured global warming/climate change crisis (cloaked in religious overtones) is nothing but another step toward global control...
In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide. Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear.
The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks
. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning.
Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation.
Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.
The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one.
There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend.
the oceans warm up, and some of the dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, like fizz from soda. “The greenhouse global warming theory has it foot backwards,”
Hap --- let it go. You and I will never agree about this, OK???? I disagree with RumRunner too.
And --- my thinking will never match up with yours (or his), concerning envirionmental stuff.
I know this was addressed to Hap, but I have to say something as well. Those of us on the mainstream side of the "debate" get annoyed by seeing sarcastic, mean-spirited stuff like this pop up in the Open forum on this site. If I wanted to see idiotic posts to make me mad, I'd go to the Political forum. You aren't the one who originally posted this, so I'm not blaming you, but I can see why Hap as well as myself want to respond to comments here. There is an ongoing push by people like Ron to get us all in lockstep with his extreme right-wing opinions. Sometimes I feel like people around here are just as pushy, arrogant, and narrow-minded as they were in TWI. Personally, I feel it's ok for people to have whatever opinions they have, even if they are completely wrong. I just don't like to have it littering this section of the forum when there's an appropriate place for it. When it's posted here rather than in the Politics area, I view it as Ron trying to shove his political beliefs down my throat and misleading the general population of this site into thinking his opinion is the only valid one.
I know this was addressed to Hap, but I have to say something as well. Those of us on the mainstream side of the "debate" get annoyed by seeing sarcastic, mean-spirited stuff like this pop up in the Open forum on this site. If I wanted to see idiotic posts to make me mad, I'd go to the Political forum. You aren't the one who originally posted this, so I'm not blaming you, but I can see why Hap as well as myself want to respond to comments here. There is an ongoing push by people like Ron to get us all in lockstep with his extreme right-wing opinions. Sometimes I feel like people around here are just as pushy, arrogant, and narrow-minded as they were in TWI. Personally, I feel it's ok for people to have whatever opinions they have, even if they are completely wrong. I just don't like to have it littering this section of the forum when there's an appropriate place for it. When it's posted here rather than in the Politics area, I view it as Ron trying to shove his political beliefs down my throat and misleading the general population of this site into thinking his opinion is the only valid one.
For the record, I never take a comment of Dmiller's to be mean-spirited, it's not his way. I simply did not pick up on his sarcasm about his tree. I was NOT trying to be inflammatory.
Assuming P-mosh was referring to Ron's original post regarding Jupiter as being the sarcastic one, I think he makes a good point in one regard. Although I do not think Ron was being mean either, one problem I have with receiving posts like his here in the open forum is leaving those sarcastic remarks unresponded to. It is too easy for the sarcasm to be missed, and if unattended to, they are left hanging out there, without comment or refuting, ready to be believed and passed on by the casual reader.
I posted it because I thought it was kinda funny and quite ironic.
The same sex marriage thread in this forum seems rather political, or at least it turned that way. These things (global warming, same sex marriage etc etc) seem to draw a lot of heat and angry responses because they offend some peoples religious sensibilities as well as political.
If global warming is for real and I've never denied that, then it's a scientific issue of physical nature. When people start blaming other people, then it becomes a political issue...and, of course, like children, many have to blame things that occur naturally on someone else.
If the same climate scenario is occurring on other planets in our solar system, then it's an issue of solar cycles or something. It's NOT the fault of any political or economic philosophy.
When my post, suggesting this IS occurring on other planets (and corroborrated by NASA), is taken as a cynical attempt to be mean and some people think it should never have been posted, then OBVIOUSLY I've offended some religious sensiblities...and I don't care. I think Jen-o has a very good handle on the whole issue from a religious/political perspective.
Maybe this thread should be moved to the doctrinal forum.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
6
15
7
Popular Days
Jun 4
20
Jun 5
14
Jun 2
12
Jun 3
10
Top Posters In This Topic
Ron G. 6 posts
HAPe4me 6 posts
rhino 15 posts
RumRunner 7 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2008
20 posts
Jun 5 2008
14 posts
Jun 2 2008
12 posts
Jun 3 2008
10 posts
rhino
I think they also found global warming on Mars.
Probably a few years after we destroy our economy and the world is much less free, we will discover we are cooling and that CO2 had nothing to do with warming or cooling.
I wonder if oil hits $200 ... if perhaps there will be a campaign issue about opening up ANWR or our many off shore sites for drilling. Maybe coal won't need to be perfectly pure. Maybe nuke reactors will be OK.
The Gorebots have gotten their votes with the global warming scare ... what happens is evidence shows we have not warmed for a decade, and gas at the pump is $5.50? Perhaps people won't think these fairy tales from the left need to be put ahead of our lifestyle.
Who is driving this old bUS anyway?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seth R.
I forget who and where but it might have been on TED.com or NOVA that I watched a talk given by a professor of meteorology.
He was studying Jupiter, and noticed that the jetstreams and the storm systems on that planet seemed to mirror our own.
He looked at the latitudes in scale to earths and it seemed to predict where, when and the magnitude of the storms we have.
I never looked into it myself but someone with an interest in weather might like to.
Seth
Edited by Seth R.Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
You guys are observing Carbon Belch Day on 6/12, aren't you?
Please don't disappoint me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Those evil capitalists are ruining the entire solar system, by Jove!
ABSOLUTELY!!! That day preempts Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter and Mardis Gras for me!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Wow Ron and Rhino, you two are geniuses. The words "climate change" pops up, and you instantly pull out your dunce hats and political soapboxes and start spewing B.S. because two keywords you have been brainwashed to think a certain way about triggers your programmed thought patterns, and ends up polluting the internet (which you are able to use in a large part due to Al Gore taking an active interest in and lead the way in funding it) with trash.
For those of you that might have a clue but not understand all the way, the words "climate change" basically mean when a climate is going through a change. The "El Niño" weather pattern, for example, is a type of climate change, but is not man-made. Our pollution, however, has caused what is called "anthropomorphic climate change" which is about as accepted by modern science as the effects of gravity are. Unfortunately, big polluter corporations, some bribed "scientists" (who never publish anything in a peer-reviewed format for others to verify), and corrupt/delusional politicians try to make you think that we really can't pollute the environment. So don't let people like Ron and rhino tell you what to believe, because quite simply they are representing the far right, which is completely delusional. Even George W. Bush, who is pro-business and anti-science, says that anthropomorphic climate change is real.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... and the fact that they portray environmentalism as a form of Marxism really escapes me. ... Like Karl Marx really wrote about how the proletariat would make the economy more green by overthrowing the (please pardon my pathetic French spelling) bourgeoisie capitalist running dogs? (Why can't the French spell like the English?
)
Why, if you look _really_ close, you should be able to see the image of Karl Marx (or is it V.I. Lenin?) in the big red cloud.
(Kinda like that image of that alien peeping into that guy's window.
)
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
The term was global warming, changed because we have not been warming for ten years or so.
The climate has gone through much greater swings before man was polluting. And the point that apparently has escaped pmosh is that Jupiter is going through the same changes. So the question should arise, how does man made pollution cause warming on Jupiter?
Politician Gore said the science is settled. The science is certainly not settled. His movie is full of errors, yet the average dunce walks away full of spunk, and ready to talk down anyone that has actually studied the subject. You may have noticed the far left trend to produce propaganda movies lately.
Pmosh's statements on the science are as reasonable as his other outlandish statements about Ron and me.
Oh, and the "pollution" that supposedly causes warming has not been shown to be a cause at all. There are no known ill effects of more CO2, greenhouses often increase CO2 to help things grow better.
Garth, I don't know who the "they" is that you refer to. But it seems clear that Gore is a Democrat leader, and he was politically motivated to make his movie and push this agenda. Cataclysm makes for good TV ... so this end of the world theme is good for their bottom line. Now reducing our carbon footprint has become hip, and you are like so square if you contend the science is not settled.
There has been a one degree rise over the last 100 years ... and basically nothing in the last ten. Yet people will swear they can tell the difference ... it is amazing how many times I hear people bring up global warming as the cause for this or that ... fortunately this latest bill will probably fail for now.
So even though a Democrat senate is against it, all presidential candidates have to be for it. It is politically incorrect to even hint that "the science is not settled".
Also you see the cut throat nature of business. If coal companies have to raise their rates, do you think the nuclear plants will not raise theirs? Plus they'll be able to produce more I'd guess.
He really means his company wants his competition to pay more. I don't want the coal burners to pay more for pumping out CO2. It helps my soybeans grow better, and doesn't hurt a thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
For what it is worth -- today is the second of June, 2008.
I've got a flowering crab tree in the back yard, and just today,
it started to sprout flowers outside of the leaves.
Global warming?? BS.
(edited to correct spelling --- yea I care about that stuff!)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
the climate changes; so what!
al gore wants to make a religion out of it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Dmiller- were you under the opinion that global climate change if true, would manifest its affects suddenly? Like all at once this year? I don't think even the staunchest proponents of climate change ever suggested such a thing. If the fact of whether your tree blooms early or late this year is what you base your comment of "BS" upon, then you perhaps do not understand the concerns which many around the world are discussing.
Oh,for what it is worth, my flowers are out early, my trees leafed out late, and the golfcourse greens were damaged by the dry windy winter. Oh, those observations of mine are not worth anything either. The argument for global climate change (global warming in some areas, cooling in others) is looking at long term trends not isolated anecdotes of a particular tree, flower or a bunion on someone's foot.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
I went to my podiatrist to have a bunion removed.
When the treatment ended, I asked if another appointment would be necessary.
He said,"No, but if you experience any discomfort, you should callous back."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hap --- let it go. You and I will never agree about this, OK???? I disagree with RumRunner too.
And --- my thinking will never match up with yours (or his), concerning envirionmental stuff.
I see a whole lot of "liberal" spin to this whole issue. Maybe you don't, but I do.
You and I are about the same age. I remember VIVIDLY being taught about "global cooling",
back in the 1960's in high school. Perhaps you had the same lessons.
I was being facetious (tongue in cheek if you will) about this year, and the blossoms on the one tree in my back yard that should have bloomed at least a month ago, but didn't. Even some of the local radio station folks were commenting on the *Late Summer* this year. You know --- there is (many times) here in Duluth a 30 degree difference in temperature from my place down here by the shore of Lake Superior, and up over the hill. It can be (and frequently is) somewhere around 65 degrees here at my house, and 4 miles away (over the hill by the airport) it is 90 degrees, the same day.
Yea -- I understand that discussions go on all over the world. So what?? Honestly?
Every last discussion is "slanted" (the same as this one here), and I have to ask:
What's accomplished by it?? Nothing. More rhetoric given the participant's viewpoint.
Nothing more, nothing less. Just like your's and my viewpoints on this subject.
So --- ignore anything I had to say. I guess my opinion's (observations) don't count.
Sorry I interrupted your posting time, by saying what I did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Odd comment DM - I am not a liberal - nor conservative - I am a scientist, with almost 30 years of study on this and related issues, and do my absolute best to not let politics or public opinion count. (NO you did NOT make any comment about politics - I did.) Since I have not posted on this thread I presume you refer to earlier posts - which I am not at all interested in resurrecting. I quit posting on anything to do with this topic some time ago - too polarized. I will not post anything on planetary climate change in this thread either. BTW - I do not ignore anything people say - nor will I ignore your post. I will read them and most likely not comment - but I will still read them and will not downplay your opinion(s) and/or observations(s). That would be fallacious science.
So with all due respect - please leave me/my screen name out of future discussions on the issues of climate change - no longer interested in posting on that topic here - and certainly not interested in imposing any of my studies on others here. Just as a side note - if you read previous posts I made you will see I did not present (to the best of my knowledge) any polarized views on the topic - to which you are free to make fun of me with the quote "Sir I can neither confirm nor deny..."
Summary - you asked Hap to "let it go." I ask for the same courtesy from you. This response is in NO way meant to be inflammatory - I just don't want to discuss the issue on these forums anymore.
Regards,
RR
PS - I like crab apples
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
David, I apologize, I did not take your post as being tongue-in-cheek. I took it as you saying that because of trees blooming (I didn't know if this was early or late for them) that this was evidence of the theory being BS. Apparently this is not what you meant. Again, sorry.
Of course your opinion counts,and if you do not wish to give reasons for your opinion that is fine too. I had not intended to post to this thread as the subject has been talked to death here, but I mistakenly THOUGHT you were raising a new view I had not heard and was seeking clarification.
I think no ill towards you David and did not intend to imply such.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
RR --- your wish is my comand.
Consider it done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Thanks DM - but I most certainly NEVER hope to be in a position where my wish is someone's command. Nonetheless thank you for your consideration of my response.
Best,
RR
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I took care of that typo for you wRonG...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
well... global warming/global climate change (whichever term you prefer) is still a manufactured crisis...
it's nothing but another step toward global control of earth's population and resources...
at the UN conference in bali last year,
A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference.
“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” said Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate.
Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”
The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.
The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner.
Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide."
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."
HOW TRUE!
this is not about the environment; it is about global control!
further, al gore has made it into a religion...
upon receiving his 2007 nobel peace prize, gore said:
"We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."
uh, no, mr. gore, this is NOT one of my spiritual challenges...
the manufactured global warming/climate change crisis (cloaked in religious overtones) is nothing but another step toward global control...
and the people love to have it so...
the people will get what they want...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
must have been all that hair spray from thoe 60's beehives hair doos! Chicken Little did say the sky is fallen.....
oh my oh my
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
This was in The Nation about a year ago.
Some more from that here
I don't know if this guy knows everything, but it was in The Nation, which I think is more of a lefty rag.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I know this was addressed to Hap, but I have to say something as well. Those of us on the mainstream side of the "debate" get annoyed by seeing sarcastic, mean-spirited stuff like this pop up in the Open forum on this site. If I wanted to see idiotic posts to make me mad, I'd go to the Political forum. You aren't the one who originally posted this, so I'm not blaming you, but I can see why Hap as well as myself want to respond to comments here. There is an ongoing push by people like Ron to get us all in lockstep with his extreme right-wing opinions. Sometimes I feel like people around here are just as pushy, arrogant, and narrow-minded as they were in TWI. Personally, I feel it's ok for people to have whatever opinions they have, even if they are completely wrong. I just don't like to have it littering this section of the forum when there's an appropriate place for it. When it's posted here rather than in the Politics area, I view it as Ron trying to shove his political beliefs down my throat and misleading the general population of this site into thinking his opinion is the only valid one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
For the record, I never take a comment of Dmiller's to be mean-spirited, it's not his way. I simply did not pick up on his sarcasm about his tree. I was NOT trying to be inflammatory.
Assuming P-mosh was referring to Ron's original post regarding Jupiter as being the sarcastic one, I think he makes a good point in one regard. Although I do not think Ron was being mean either, one problem I have with receiving posts like his here in the open forum is leaving those sarcastic remarks unresponded to. It is too easy for the sarcasm to be missed, and if unattended to, they are left hanging out there, without comment or refuting, ready to be believed and passed on by the casual reader.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
If you don't believe in Global Warming, I hope you do believe in Fortune Telling...
Because...
I predict this thread is headed to the Soap Opera forum or the political forum soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
I posted it because I thought it was kinda funny and quite ironic.
The same sex marriage thread in this forum seems rather political, or at least it turned that way. These things (global warming, same sex marriage etc etc) seem to draw a lot of heat and angry responses because they offend some peoples religious sensibilities as well as political.
If global warming is for real and I've never denied that, then it's a scientific issue of physical nature. When people start blaming other people, then it becomes a political issue...and, of course, like children, many have to blame things that occur naturally on someone else.
If the same climate scenario is occurring on other planets in our solar system, then it's an issue of solar cycles or something. It's NOT the fault of any political or economic philosophy.
When my post, suggesting this IS occurring on other planets (and corroborrated by NASA), is taken as a cynical attempt to be mean and some people think it should never have been posted, then OBVIOUSLY I've offended some religious sensiblities...and I don't care. I think Jen-o has a very good handle on the whole issue from a religious/political perspective.
Maybe this thread should be moved to the doctrinal forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.