Climate Change is global socialism, admits the UN
-
To 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.
A_Griffin wrote:
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
No, it's even worse - they're talking money from richer COUNTRIES, and they're not even giving it to other less wealthy countries. They're reinvesting it into their own climate change agenda. It's all bullsh|t.
".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:
the very basis of CAGW is in fact disproved
No, it hasn't. (But nor am I saying it's proved.) Nothing is proven, either way. How many times must that be repeated for you to get it? You don't know what will happen in years to come. Maybe WV will increase as (if) temperatures continue to rise. Maybe some other factor will play a more significant role than thought (eg changing ocean currents, jet stream, melting permafrost, etc et-bloody-cetera.)
Quote:
Why dont you direct that sentiment at alarmist climate scientists who do exactly that?
Because they aren't spouting certainties like you are trying to do. They are presenting different scenarios, and different scientists have different opinions as to which is the more likely. CAGW is simply the worst case scenario. Which is a possibility - nowhere near to being "disproved".
A_Griffin wrote:
No, it hasn't
Yes it has, because there is no water vapour response to temperature increase, thus the suppsed amplifying factor that makes CO2 potentailly dangerous is NOT at play.
A_Griffin wrote:
Maybe WV will increase as (if) temperatures continue to rise
Based on WHAT physics? You can't just make stuff up, there HAS to be a mechanism.
A_Griffin wrote:
Maybe some other factor will play a more significant role than thought (eg changing ocean currents, jet stream, melting permafrost, etc et-bloody-cetera.)
The first two dont add heat. The last might release CH4. However CH4s absorption band is totally overlapped by water vapour [^] . It doesnt last long in the atmosphere either. It reacts quite easily. (In fact it burns).
A_Griffin wrote:
they aren't spouting certainties like you are trying to do
I am pointing out that it is a FACT that doubling CO2 leads to 1C rise, and that water vapour is not increasing. These arent predictions, possibilities, maybes. There are facts.
-
One of the nicest blokes I know is a Muslim. His daughter was recently lauded as a girl coder at a set of Microsoft events. He's one of the most vocal advocates FOR women's rights that I know. Then again, people like him don't play into your narrative so you'll write him off as a statistical outlier.
This space for rent
The fact that your friend is like this, means he is becoming Westernized, and is straying from the true teachings of Islam. I hope you understand this when you speak about him. If you don't, then I suggest you study the true teachings of Islam before assuming that all Muslims are like your friend. Just saying.
-
The fact that your friend is like this, means he is becoming Westernized, and is straying from the true teachings of Islam. I hope you understand this when you speak about him. If you don't, then I suggest you study the true teachings of Islam before assuming that all Muslims are like your friend. Just saying.
I don't think all Muslims are like him, the same way I don't think all Christians are the same. I'm a big believer, though, that people are individuals and only idiots reduce people to stereotypes.
This space for rent
-
I don't think all Muslims are like him, the same way I don't think all Christians are the same. I'm a big believer, though, that people are individuals and only idiots reduce people to stereotypes.
This space for rent
I don't think it is a stereotype to say that fundamental Islam and Sharia Law does not mix with Western society, because it doesn't. You also cannot compare Christianity to Islam because they are not the same type of religion/teachings. BTW, I am not for or against Christianity. All I know is that the majority of fundamental Christians have mixed with Western society just fine, as the Jews, as the Buddhists, etc. You are more than welcome to think I am an idiot for my thoughts on the issue - I know I am not. You already know how I feel about "most" liberals, so it is only fair to feel the same, I guess. ;)
-
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:
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.
True. It is what they have to do to attract investment and stay in business. They also have to keep their prices competitive to stay in business. In the event of competing businesses not reaching a mutual agreement to desist from actions that endanger a species (including Homo sapiens), Government must be persuaded to enact laws compelling them to do so. However, a watertight case must be presented based on empirical evidence - no computer modelling. :-D
A_Griffin wrote:
It has bought our current wealth against our children’s future
In the past capitalism has created wealth from the resources available to it. The following generations have been able to clear up their pollution, and still remain far wealthier than all preceding generations. You may not think that this will continue, but I am more optimistic. You may be a glass half empty chap, I may be a glass half full. At least we are not Erlich who would tell us there is no glass, and even if there were, there is nothing to put in it.
-
Indeed, I am, because muslims ARE homophobic and want women to stay at home. :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Indeed, I am, because muslims ARE homophobic and want women to stay at home.
I am afraid empirical evidence disproves 'ALL Muslims are homophobic and want women to stay at home'. (If you use MOST, I would have to accept it, as a trip to Luton to carry out a survey is not in the cards.)
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Indeed, I am, because muslims ARE homophobic and want women to stay at home.
I am afraid empirical evidence disproves 'ALL Muslims are homophobic and want women to stay at home'. (If you use MOST, I would have to accept it, as a trip to Luton to carry out a survey is not in the cards.)
As I said elsewhere, the vociferous minority control the passive majority. There fore ALL muslims are homophobic and want women to stay at home, because those who dont have no voice.
-
As I said elsewhere, the vociferous minority control the passive majority. There fore ALL muslims are homophobic and want women to stay at home, because those who dont have no voice.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
As I said elsewhere, the vociferous minority control the passive majority.
Are you always this consistently wrong? :-D My experience has been that those who do not share the views of the 'vociferous majority', keep their own council, and behave according to their beliefs. Your experience has been different. I'm OK with that.
-
:thumbsup:
Munchies_Matt wrote:
if they could implement Sharia law in the UK.
Most liberal white people don't get this. They have no fucking idea what kind of fire they are playing with when they condone this shit.
Quote:
"There is a demonisation of the community. You just have to mention the word Sharia and the first thing people think of is hands being cut off. It is rubbish: it might be a criminal aspect of Sharia law but it is not Sharia in general. It has become a bogey word for the British public – you just mention Sharia and you get a headline." David Frei, Chief Registrar of London's Beth Din (Rabbinical Court of Judaism)
Only too true:
Slacker007 wrote:
Most liberal white people don't get this. They have no f***ing idea what kind of fire they are playing with when they condone this sh*t.
Sharia Courts would be constrained, as are the Talmudic Courts, by UK Law.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
No, it hasn't
Yes it has, because there is no water vapour response to temperature increase, thus the suppsed amplifying factor that makes CO2 potentailly dangerous is NOT at play.
A_Griffin wrote:
Maybe WV will increase as (if) temperatures continue to rise
Based on WHAT physics? You can't just make stuff up, there HAS to be a mechanism.
A_Griffin wrote:
Maybe some other factor will play a more significant role than thought (eg changing ocean currents, jet stream, melting permafrost, etc et-bloody-cetera.)
The first two dont add heat. The last might release CH4. However CH4s absorption band is totally overlapped by water vapour [^] . It doesnt last long in the atmosphere either. It reacts quite easily. (In fact it burns).
A_Griffin wrote:
they aren't spouting certainties like you are trying to do
I am pointing out that it is a FACT that doubling CO2 leads to 1C rise, and that water vapour is not increasing. These arent predictions, possibilities, maybes. There are facts.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
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.
True. It is what they have to do to attract investment and stay in business. They also have to keep their prices competitive to stay in business. In the event of competing businesses not reaching a mutual agreement to desist from actions that endanger a species (including Homo sapiens), Government must be persuaded to enact laws compelling them to do so. However, a watertight case must be presented based on empirical evidence - no computer modelling. :-D
A_Griffin wrote:
It has bought our current wealth against our children’s future
In the past capitalism has created wealth from the resources available to it. The following generations have been able to clear up their pollution, and still remain far wealthier than all preceding generations. You may not think that this will continue, but I am more optimistic. You may be a glass half empty chap, I may be a glass half full. At least we are not Erlich who would tell us there is no glass, and even if there were, there is nothing to put in it.
Quote:
However, a watertight case must be presented based on empirical evidence - no computer modelling
Well, no - because doing nothing is also a decision, a choice, and you could therefore just as well say that doing nothing - preserving the status quo - must also require a watertight case based on (etc).
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
As I said elsewhere, the vociferous minority control the passive majority.
Are you always this consistently wrong? :-D My experience has been that those who do not share the views of the 'vociferous majority', keep their own council, and behave according to their beliefs. Your experience has been different. I'm OK with that.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Are you always this consistently wrong
Less than 10% or Germans were Nazis. As Churchill said: "A fervent minority will displace a complacent majority" It is basic human nature. One psychopath, 10 thugs to do his bidding, and the other 89 get fucked. That is the way it works. You need to realise this. The trick therefore is to give those 89 a voice. The power to control the aggressive minority in their midst. And this is what we see in Islam. Most muslims are just average people who want a simple life looking after their family, spending time with their friends, enjoying themselves. This is universal human nature. But then along comes the assholes who make a mess of it.
-
Fine - you just keep on telling yourself that you know more than the combined body of climate scientists if it makes you feel better.
This IS climate science. This is what climate scientists know. What you are failing to do is listen carefully to them and instead listening to the media. If you read what is actually said by the majority of climate scientists you will see that they use terms like 'might' a lot. Of course temperatures 'might' rise exessively. They also leave plenty of room for them not to rise that much. Look at the IPCC. Look at the range of temperature changes they talk about. They include what I have stated here. A small rise.
-
Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”[^] So, all you believers, prepared to accept the truth?
So the context is clear... Google Translate[^] Ottmar Edenhofer makes it clear that the context of this discussion he is tying "emissions" as directly correlated to "economic growth". And he mentions the reality that coal producers (owners) are not going to like this because it will reduce their income. It is also clear that these statements were made some time ago. And the renewable landscape has changed radically since then. For example the investment China has made since then.
-
Quote:
However, a watertight case must be presented based on empirical evidence - no computer modelling
Well, no - because doing nothing is also a decision, a choice, and you could therefore just as well say that doing nothing - preserving the status quo - must also require a watertight case based on (etc).
Those who wish the capitalists to desist from actions that endanger one or more species, would be presenting their argument to Government to introduce appropriate legislation. The capitalists would be presenting the 'do nothing' argument, in order to preserve the status quo. Whichever argument the Government opts for, it had better have been the watertight one, history can be unforgiving. :)
-
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Are you always this consistently wrong
Less than 10% or Germans were Nazis. As Churchill said: "A fervent minority will displace a complacent majority" It is basic human nature. One psychopath, 10 thugs to do his bidding, and the other 89 get fucked. That is the way it works. You need to realise this. The trick therefore is to give those 89 a voice. The power to control the aggressive minority in their midst. And this is what we see in Islam. Most muslims are just average people who want a simple life looking after their family, spending time with their friends, enjoying themselves. This is universal human nature. But then along comes the assholes who make a mess of it.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
But then along comes the assholes who make a mess of it.
Britain & France, and then the USA?
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
But then along comes the assholes who make a mess of it.
Britain & France, and then the USA?
No, of course not. I am talking about the Pol Pots of the world. THe extremists, the power hungry, the warped idealists, who only end up heaping suffering on the masses.
-
No, of course not. I am talking about the Pol Pots of the world. THe extremists, the power hungry, the warped idealists, who only end up heaping suffering on the masses.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
No, of course not.
Why 'of course'? After WW1 Britain & France could have left the Middle East to its inhabitants. Rather than carving out artificial suzerain 'states', kingdoms. Old habits die hard. The USA deemed it necessary to overthrow the secular governments that replaced the kingdoms. From Iran to Syria. Extremist, power hungry, warped idealists, who only end up heaping suffering on the masses.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
No, of course not.
Why 'of course'? After WW1 Britain & France could have left the Middle East to its inhabitants. Rather than carving out artificial suzerain 'states', kingdoms. Old habits die hard. The USA deemed it necessary to overthrow the secular governments that replaced the kingdoms. From Iran to Syria. Extremist, power hungry, warped idealists, who only end up heaping suffering on the masses.
Carving up the ME under the Sykes Picot agreement, so Britain could get its hands on oil, wasn't a direct cause of 'suffering of the masses'. The way it worked was Britain wold role up to a country that had some resource worth exploiting, do so, and then put about 47% of that money back into the country in roads, schools, hospitals etc. It was a pretty good idea really, for the country concerned, to get the British in, who had the money and expertise to get to the resources, and the market to sell them to. OK, you can say that throwing three different tribes together and calling it Iraq is going to cause problems, but that is only because they hate each other. There has been warfare between sects of Islam for ever, and whether Britain and France are there or not isn't going to make one bit of difference. No, the assholes I mean, the 'fervent minority Churchill is referring to' are like I said the Polpots, the Hitlers, Stalins, whoever the cunt was in Rwanda who cause the deaths, for no reason at all, of almost an entire tribe. Those assholes.
