Some ammusing historical comments about our climate from newspapers and scientists over the last century or so:
-
Horrible use of the Link there, a small link is prettier, and less annoying.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Seconded. Not reading the post because of that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
radical change in climate conditions and . . . unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone ... thrown off its icy mantle and opened its waters to navigation ... total failure of the ice crop ...another world ice-epoch is due... new ice age ...deeper snows ...mysterious warming of the climate ...Sea mammals, vanishing ... warming of climate ...unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder...plunging us toward another Ice Age...North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two... animal life in the sea will be extinct...Civilization will end within 15 or 30 ... a new Ice Age will be born...Arctic climate is becoming more frigid... trigger an ice age...“It's already getting colder... no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years...dust-dry farmland and disease...raise average annual temperatures ... horrific drought...Himalayan glaciers could vanish... warmest year on record ...Arctic warming [^] So, I think I see a pattern here: The climate changes, sometimes getting warmer, and sometimes getting colder. However there are always alarmists scientists spreading scare stories about death and destruction, and there are always newspapers prepared to print those stoires, regardless of the direction of the change. Notice the '30 year cooling trend'. And the 'civilisation ending in 15 to 30 years'? It is all so familiar...
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
there are always newspapers prepared to print those stoires, regardless of the direction of the change.
And there are always people who sit there and crow about over any damn thing. This is why it's a damn good idea to actually look at what hole they're pulling something from, compare it with reality(as science always has assumptions and selections, you can't cover everything), and see if they're full of it. But that requires effort and a clue, which people either don't bother with or don't have. Of course, if people were actually interested in being informed, rather than having to be scared into picking up a newspaper or turning the news on things may be a tad different. But really, 'humanity might be kinda screwed in 100-200 years' vs 'Everyone dies in flood two days from now', which is the media going to pick up? Using what the media touts around to disprove global climate change is about as effective as using my site to disprove religion. All either proves is there are assholes, idiots and morons everywhere.
-
read about 3 posts up and you'll get my response on that question about their encouragement (as there is no subliminal message in that article!)
As barmey as a sack of badgers
You are a brainwashed government tool.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
water if inhaled can kill yet it is a neccessity for life, if you were submerged in it would you be happy? or dead? just because of fact A is true does not stop fact B from being true and to think it does shows a lack of logical thinking. carbon dioxide may or maynot be a factor in climate change (and history says it does - although not manmade) but as it is caused (least the bit we can effect) by wastefull processes, then surely reducing these emmisions cannot be a bad thing?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Alex hogarth wrote:
water if inhaled can kill yet it is a neccessity for life, if you were submerged in it would you be happy? or dead?
Oh come on, this is such a childish argument. We are talking about 500 to 600 parts per million of co2. It doesnt become toxic till it reaches 5%. Thats 50,000 parts per milion. OK you are going to be very uncomfortable at that level but not dead. And for milions of years life on earth has lived under conditions upto 10,000 ppm. A mere 1%.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
You are a brainwashed government tool.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
this coming from you who see's terror and dictatorship from an innocent article. this makes me laugh :laugh:
As barmey as a sack of badgers
-
Im not old enough to know of the colding stories but the most vivid story of the global warming crisis is from the carbon gas's emmited from the fridge freezers in the 80's
As barmey as a sack of badgers
Simon_Whale wrote:
but the most vivid story of the global warming crisis is from the carbon gas's emmited from the fridge freezers in the 80's
Yeah, you see you got htis all wrong. Its flourocarbon gas used in fridges and it damaged the ozone layer. (I am not saying it doesnt add to GW, or even GC, almost everything in the atmosphere will have some effect, but that wasnt the news story at the time).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
there are always newspapers prepared to print those stoires, regardless of the direction of the change.
And there are always people who sit there and crow about over any damn thing. This is why it's a damn good idea to actually look at what hole they're pulling something from, compare it with reality(as science always has assumptions and selections, you can't cover everything), and see if they're full of it. But that requires effort and a clue, which people either don't bother with or don't have. Of course, if people were actually interested in being informed, rather than having to be scared into picking up a newspaper or turning the news on things may be a tad different. But really, 'humanity might be kinda screwed in 100-200 years' vs 'Everyone dies in flood two days from now', which is the media going to pick up? Using what the media touts around to disprove global climate change is about as effective as using my site to disprove religion. All either proves is there are assholes, idiots and morons everywhere.
Distind wrote:
Using what the media touts around to disprove global climate change is about as effective as using my site to disprove religion. .
Even though these comments stemmed from scientists? Clearly there has always been scientific hysteria, and the press has always been ready to print it. Thats the point of my post. And while there might be some global warming caused by CO2, my post doesnt hope to disprove it, but to suggest that we be aware of past hysteria when we read todays scare stories.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Seconded. Not reading the post because of that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Seconded. Not reading the post because of that.
Same.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Generally, but a life-time of thinking carbon dioxide (which animals exhale and plants inhale) is a toxic gas that is destroying the planet has had to have effected you negatively.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
a life-time of thinking carbon dioxide (which animals exhale and plants inhale) is a toxic gas that is destroying the planet
Who referred to it as a toxic gas? Only the anti-AGW sheeple, bleating falsehoods such as "Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just officially declared carbon dioxide (CO2) to be a poison". The EPA did not refer to it is a poison or a toxic gas[^]. It referred to Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6) as contributors to the greenhouse gas pollution [that] threatens public health and welfare. I have only seen Carbon Dioxide referred to as a poison in medical literature, and never in the context of Global Warming. BTW: Plants don't exhale or inhale.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
They don't improve things at all. Things are badly damaged economically, and societally by a reduction in carbon emissions. People starve, quality of life downgrades, and society collapses into hardcore feudalism. Governments benefit though because they get more power, and special interest inside government benefit because they get billions of dollars and get to live like Lords and Kings.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Things are badly damaged economically, and societally by a reduction in carbon emissions.
But carbon emissions will be reduced as the market forces us to move away from fossil fuels as our main energy source.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
People starve, quality of life downgrades, and society collapses into hardcore feudalism.
Nah. That's just your lack of imagination.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Governments benefit though because they get more power, and special interest inside government benefit because they get billions of dollars and get to live like Lords and Kings.
They always have. They rely on inactivists, such as your good self. That is why one must have radicals to change things, conservatives (of the 'right' or 'left'), by their very nature, just don't cut it.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Japanese told to go to bed an hour early to cut carbon emissions
That is the Torygraph's headline. The only part of the article that you read, apparently. The article uses the words 'urged' and 'encouraged', rather than 'told'. The campaign recommends going to bed and getting up one hour earlier. If the Japanese government believes that the carbon emissions are deleterious to the climate, what's wrong with their campaign? If a Japanese family believes that the carbon emissions are deleterious to the climate, they might adopt the habit or not. It is up to them. So what? You have bigger things to worry about at home, the fact that your President has absolute, tyrannical, unconstrained, power over whether you live or die. Back under your bed with your num-num blanket, oh Info-Warrior.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Horrible use of the Link there, a small link is prettier, and less annoying.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Why? It shows at least that all that I quoted came from the link. What would you prefer, quotes and small link? I really dont see how that makes any difference to the content and if its sufficient to put you off reading it then you are a twit.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Seconded. Not reading the post because of that.
Same.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Seconded. Not reading the post because of that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Not reading the post because of that.
Yeah, sure. More like: "oh no, I dont want my faith in GW knocked so I will come up with any excuse not to read it" Go stick your head back in the sand, the entire episode will soon pass and you can go back to your comfort zone of assumed truths and mores.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Things are badly damaged economically, and societally by a reduction in carbon emissions.
But carbon emissions will be reduced as the market forces us to move away from fossil fuels as our main energy source.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
People starve, quality of life downgrades, and society collapses into hardcore feudalism.
Nah. That's just your lack of imagination.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Governments benefit though because they get more power, and special interest inside government benefit because they get billions of dollars and get to live like Lords and Kings.
They always have. They rely on inactivists, such as your good self. That is why one must have radicals to change things, conservatives (of the 'right' or 'left'), by their very nature, just don't cut it.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
Bob Emmett wrote:
That is why one must have radicals to change things
Well, if you want radical action, that often ends up damaging the system more than helping it, then yes, that is a way of change. Far better is to not change it by being radical. Such as the abolition of slavery and the implementation of a national healthcare system in the UK. Radical acts, such as the English revoloution, caused such chaos with many of the effects of the revoloution being reversed. Radical = chaos = destruction and pain.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Why? It shows at least that all that I quoted came from the link. What would you prefer, quotes and small link? I really dont see how that makes any difference to the content and if its sufficient to put you off reading it then you are a twit.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I won't go because of the link. Full links like that make the poster look like a twat, even if there is a legitimate point to be made. It is the CSS way of doing things, don't go down that road.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
I won't go because of the link. Full links like that make the poster look like a twat, even if there is a legitimate point to be made. It is the CSS way of doing things, don't go down that road.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
Full links like that make the poster look like a twat
Its not a full link, but I can see your prejudice blinds you to the truth. In fact it is a long article, from which I snipped various phrases relating to the changing climate. I dont even know if you read what I posted, even if you didnt read the link itself. If you did you will realise that infact my point is valid.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Not reading the post because of that.
Yeah, sure. More like: "oh no, I dont want my faith in GW knocked so I will come up with any excuse not to read it" Go stick your head back in the sand, the entire episode will soon pass and you can go back to your comfort zone of assumed truths and mores.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I've explained this before. I don't read posts that are huge links. I don't care who posts them. If you want to debate something, don't try to blind us.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I've explained this before. I don't read posts that are huge links. I don't care who posts them. If you want to debate something, don't try to blind us.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
But if I hadnt highlighted all the contradictory statements made over the last 100 years the post wouldnt have made the point.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
But did the entire paragraph have to be one giant link? Hey, I have an idea... Let's go back to the 90s when every site was in bright yellow with blinking text and 32-point fonts! Seriously, trying to read a paragraph that keeps flashing underlines whenever I move my mouse is not worth the trouble, so I won't bother.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)