Climate Change is global socialism, admits the UN
-
Of course one must first start from the fact that CFact is a denier site funded by businesses whose interests are specifically impacted by laws about the climate. So I did a basic minimal search to attempt to validate the first quote "Ottmar Edenhofer" from some site that wasn't a denier site. I couldn't find one. I didn't bother looking for the second. If someone can find such a reference I would like to read it. I would like to see the actual context even providing such a quote exists.
jschell wrote:
Of course one must first start from the fact that CFact is a denier site
Following given link (I wore gloves, no worry), I ended up on an article explaining that the solution to species extinction is to privatize them... Given example was privatizing elephants so that hunting economy would sustain their preservation costs. I now use to act with lobbyists just as with trolls: I don't feed them ;)
selfish adj. Defines someone who does not think of me.
-
Excuse me? You're the one that brought up the issue of political motivations, and listed a defence of capitalism based on all the wonderful things it has achieved. And then you have the nerve to call me out for responding? Screw you. And you accuse me of being presumptive about you while you seem to be assuming I'm out to destroy capitalism because I highlight it's failings.
I asked you if you were politically motivated, you said 'me and my ilk' are following an agenda. Can you spot the difference. Now, where are those 2,000 species extinct in the last century? And if you dont think capitalism has given us immense wealth, then to what do you attribute the fact that we, today, live like kings of centuries ago?
A_Griffin wrote:
Screw you
Sad when a debate has to go this way.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Yet you ASSUME I am some kind of right wing type. Racist, homophobic, wants women to stay at home.
You missed Islamophobic. Oh, wait ... :laugh:
Indeed, I am, because muslims ARE homophobic and want women to stay at home. :)
-
I asked you if you were politically motivated, you said 'me and my ilk' are following an agenda. Can you spot the difference. Now, where are those 2,000 species extinct in the last century? And if you dont think capitalism has given us immense wealth, then to what do you attribute the fact that we, today, live like kings of centuries ago?
A_Griffin wrote:
Screw you
Sad when a debate has to go this way.
Quote:
Now, where are those 2,000 species extinct in the last century?
SO I was being hyperbolic – so sue me. Nevertheless, if you read the paper the figures are pretty scary about what’s going on.
Quote:
And if you dont think capitalism has given us immense wealth, then to what do you attribute the fact that we, today, live like kings of centuries ago?
I never said capitalism hasn’t given us great wealth. (For someone that’s so keen on seeing others justify what they say, you can be awfully lax about your own statements at times.) On the contrary – but that is also the root of its problems: that it has given us this wealth at the expense of any concern for anything else. Wealth creation has been its sole aim and raison d’etre. Companies’ sole aims have been to maximise their bottom line profits in order, in the case of public ones, to maximise the return to shareholders. This needs to change. I am not anti-capitalism per se but it needs to engage in more than simple wealth creation for its own sake. It has bought our current wealth against our children’s future, and they will not be thanking us for it in the decades to come.
Quote:
Sad when a debate has to go this way.
Maybe, but as Prof Gerardo Ceballos, at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, who led the work on the paper I linked to, said:
Quote:
The situation has become so bad it would not be ethical not to use strong language.
-
Indeed, I am, because muslims ARE homophobic and want women to stay at home. :)
All muslims or are you just generalising?
This space for rent
-
All muslims or are you just generalising?
This space for rent
Put it this way, as Churchil said, the passive majority will never control a fervent minority. The muslim council of Britain asked Blair if they could implement Sharia law in the UK. So the answer is 'all of them', since those who don't are not in control.
-
Quote:
Now, where are those 2,000 species extinct in the last century?
SO I was being hyperbolic – so sue me. Nevertheless, if you read the paper the figures are pretty scary about what’s going on.
Quote:
And if you dont think capitalism has given us immense wealth, then to what do you attribute the fact that we, today, live like kings of centuries ago?
I never said capitalism hasn’t given us great wealth. (For someone that’s so keen on seeing others justify what they say, you can be awfully lax about your own statements at times.) On the contrary – but that is also the root of its problems: that it has given us this wealth at the expense of any concern for anything else. Wealth creation has been its sole aim and raison d’etre. Companies’ sole aims have been to maximise their bottom line profits in order, in the case of public ones, to maximise the return to shareholders. This needs to change. I am not anti-capitalism per se but it needs to engage in more than simple wealth creation for its own sake. It has bought our current wealth against our children’s future, and they will not be thanking us for it in the decades to come.
Quote:
Sad when a debate has to go this way.
Maybe, but as Prof Gerardo Ceballos, at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, who led the work on the paper I linked to, said:
Quote:
The situation has become so bad it would not be ethical not to use strong language.
A_Griffin wrote:
I was being hyperbolic
A bit y = x^2 eh? :)
A_Griffin wrote:
the figures are pretty scary about what’s going on
No they aren't. We have lost 90% of all species known. We will lose more. Mankind, in the nasty advanced capitalistic west, is actually trying to preserve endangered species.
A_Griffin wrote:
it has given us this wealth at the expense of any concern for anything else.
We certainly WERE like that. Today we aren't. because we have environmental laws. We need more. For plastics particularly. Capitalism can of course lead to abuse. Any system can. That is why we have law, and democracy to create it, so we can control that abuse. Shame to throw the baby out with the bath water eh? Capitalism has done us much good. Let us deal with the bad it has also given us and not destroy it entirely. Dont you agree?
-
A_Griffin wrote:
I was being hyperbolic
A bit y = x^2 eh? :)
A_Griffin wrote:
the figures are pretty scary about what’s going on
No they aren't. We have lost 90% of all species known. We will lose more. Mankind, in the nasty advanced capitalistic west, is actually trying to preserve endangered species.
A_Griffin wrote:
it has given us this wealth at the expense of any concern for anything else.
We certainly WERE like that. Today we aren't. because we have environmental laws. We need more. For plastics particularly. Capitalism can of course lead to abuse. Any system can. That is why we have law, and democracy to create it, so we can control that abuse. Shame to throw the baby out with the bath water eh? Capitalism has done us much good. Let us deal with the bad it has also given us and not destroy it entirely. Dont you agree?
Quote:
Dont you agree?
I already told you: I am not anti-capitalist per se. But I disagree that we're (it's) dong anything like enough to deal with the problems facing the world. Capitalism, and the political structures built upon it, need to adapt far more to take into account the needs of the environment, and to have a more humane face generally. If it doesn't, it will be torn down completely, and baby, mummy, daddy and the rubber duck too will go down the drain along with the bath water.
-
Quote:
Dont you agree?
I already told you: I am not anti-capitalist per se. But I disagree that we're (it's) dong anything like enough to deal with the problems facing the world. Capitalism, and the political structures built upon it, need to adapt far more to take into account the needs of the environment, and to have a more humane face generally. If it doesn't, it will be torn down completely, and baby, mummy, daddy and the rubber duck too will go down the drain along with the bath water.
I agree. But let us enact environmental laws based on real evidence. Plastics, electronic recycling, these and probably many other areas need, right now, much tighter laws. We KNOW they are causing damage. CO2 on the other hand is known, right now, to be a big benefit to the planet. It is 20% greener since only the 1980s. Since 1900 it is probably 30% greener. This is NASA leaf index data by the way, it is reliable and solid evidence based on very well known biology. IF Co2 causes large warming (it needs water vapour +ve feedback to achieve this) then it MIGHT be dangerous; it is NOT proved that a more then 2C air temperature rise is even dangerous. And since we don't see an increase in water vapour (NASA NVAP data [^] then CO2 will only give us 1C increase when doubled to 540 ppm. And that is not only safe, it is a benefit to the planet. That is the science of AGW, and those are the facts.
-
I agree. But let us enact environmental laws based on real evidence. Plastics, electronic recycling, these and probably many other areas need, right now, much tighter laws. We KNOW they are causing damage. CO2 on the other hand is known, right now, to be a big benefit to the planet. It is 20% greener since only the 1980s. Since 1900 it is probably 30% greener. This is NASA leaf index data by the way, it is reliable and solid evidence based on very well known biology. IF Co2 causes large warming (it needs water vapour +ve feedback to achieve this) then it MIGHT be dangerous; it is NOT proved that a more then 2C air temperature rise is even dangerous. And since we don't see an increase in water vapour (NASA NVAP data [^] then CO2 will only give us 1C increase when doubled to 540 ppm. And that is not only safe, it is a benefit to the planet. That is the science of AGW, and those are the facts.
Quote:
That is the science of AGW, and those are the facts.
Just pointing to the amount of greenery proves nothing. A hothouse may be full of greenery, but it'd hard to live in it for long. Meanwhile most scientists agree that the rising CO2 level is a major contributor to the rising global average temperature, and the knock-on effects from that, should it rise not much more, are potentially quite devastating.
-
I would like to see those quotes in context. The point being that in order to achieve a sustainable environmental policy then the current capitalist model that has run the global economy will have to change - somehow - because it is the power driving the current unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly policies being practiced today. You are the one who has thrown the word "socialism" in - I don't see it in the quotes you link to.
Redistribution of wealth IS socialism.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Quote:
That is the science of AGW, and those are the facts.
Just pointing to the amount of greenery proves nothing. A hothouse may be full of greenery, but it'd hard to live in it for long. Meanwhile most scientists agree that the rising CO2 level is a major contributor to the rising global average temperature, and the knock-on effects from that, should it rise not much more, are potentially quite devastating.
A_Griffin wrote:
ust pointing to the amount of greenery proves nothing
So yo totally missed the part abotu water vapour feedbacks and its absence in reality? Sigh. Why? That IS the point. That is the single key crucial critical issue. Why are you ignoring it?
-
I asked you if you were politically motivated, you said 'me and my ilk' are following an agenda. Can you spot the difference. Now, where are those 2,000 species extinct in the last century? And if you dont think capitalism has given us immense wealth, then to what do you attribute the fact that we, today, live like kings of centuries ago?
A_Griffin wrote:
Screw you
Sad when a debate has to go this way.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Now, where are those 2,000 species extinct in the last century?
Easy google search, first result: UN Environment Programme: 200 Species Extinct Every Day, Unlike Anything Since Dinosaurs Disappeared 65 Million Years Ago | HuffPost[^]
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Now, where are those 2,000 species extinct in the last century?
Easy google search, first result: UN Environment Programme: 200 Species Extinct Every Day, Unlike Anything Since Dinosaurs Disappeared 65 Million Years Ago | HuffPost[^]
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
A link to a guardian article? Name the species. Name 2000 species. Find actual evidence instead of some story in a paper.
-
A link to a guardian article? Name the species. Name 2000 species. Find actual evidence instead of some story in a paper.
-
No? Can't find a link to the actual, apparently, UN statement? Eh?
-
A_Griffin wrote:
ust pointing to the amount of greenery proves nothing
So yo totally missed the part abotu water vapour feedbacks and its absence in reality? Sigh. Why? That IS the point. That is the single key crucial critical issue. Why are you ignoring it?
Because this is speculation. No-one knows for sure what will actually happen. Temperatures may rise enough that the absence (or not) of water vapour is irrelevant. Maybe it will be a critical factor, maybe it won't. All we do know for sure is that there is currently an upward trend in global average temperatures, and there is a general consensus that mankind has played a significant role in bringing this about. Everything else is speculation and hypothesis. But if the trend continues - and for not much longer - there could be quite severe consequences.
-
No? Can't find a link to the actual, apparently, UN statement? Eh?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
apparently, UN statement?
What statement? I wasn't looking for anything from the UN. :confused:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Because this is speculation. No-one knows for sure what will actually happen. Temperatures may rise enough that the absence (or not) of water vapour is irrelevant. Maybe it will be a critical factor, maybe it won't. All we do know for sure is that there is currently an upward trend in global average temperatures, and there is a general consensus that mankind has played a significant role in bringing this about. Everything else is speculation and hypothesis. But if the trend continues - and for not much longer - there could be quite severe consequences.
A_Griffin wrote:
Because this is speculation
No it isn't. It is the fundamental basis of CAGW. Without the +ve feedback from water vapour the warming from CO2 is very mild. AND THERE IS NO WATER VAPOUR INCREASE. This is fact, not speculation. Are you aware of the basic physics of AGW? This is from the MODTRAN model. MODTRAN Infrared Light in the Atmosphere[^] You can see the additional 3.4 watts of forcing. Now increase the surface temp till the emission is the same and the value at '...Difference' is zero. The surface temp you need is 14.75 So 0.75 is the increase in surface temperature that doubling CO2 gives, according to MODTRAN. This is the physics behind AGW, and without a water vapour increase this is all you get. 0.75 C. Have a play, it is an interesting model.
-
Redistribution of wealth IS socialism.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013To a point - but the word "socialism" on its own is pretty meaningless. To most Americans (and you are one, I believe) the word conveys a meaning tantamount to communism. To most Europeans it has a very different meaning. NO one (well, hardly anyone, and no-one that matters) is talking about literally taking money off richer people and giving it to poorer ones on the "to each according to their needs" principle, but - as whathisname said in the the quote, a "de facto" redistribution of wealth, by which he means changes in policy which will result in some such. Unregulated capitalism is proving to be a disaster, not just socially. but environmentally (and this is where he's coming from of course.) When companies care about nothing but their bottom line, and are given free reign to do what they want, then others suffer, and this is ultimately unacceptable. It has to change. So their bottom line will be hit, and a certain redistribution of wealth will follow. Call that socialism if you want, but at least recognise that there are degrees of it - it doesn't have to be blood red. But carry on as you are, and blood will very likely be spilled in due course. The current shitfest will not be tolerated forever.
