Some ammusing historical comments about our climate from newspapers and scientists over the last century or so:
-
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[^]
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
-
So taking your interpritation of that article then If I encourage you to stop posting here for your own self esteem. Am I a. Telling you its better for your health b. Or advising you that if you stop you will regain your self esteem?
As barmey as a sack of badgers
What do you think about governments telling people to reduce their carbon emissions by going to bed early?
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:
then surely reducing these emmisions cannot be a bad thing?
It is bad economically and societially. Good for governments though because they get more control. Good for special interest in government because they get billions of dollars.
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
Agreed. Reducing emissions earlier would've stopped certain events such as 4000 people dying in London in 1952 (although unofficial figures estiamte at around 12k) due to the heavy levels of smog caused by horrendous air pollution. Clean air act passes: "holy crap these buildings aren't actually black" people exclaim as they venture outside and give the walls a clean. I think there's been a couple of similar incidents around the world. So even if reducing wasteful emissions do or don't affect climate change, local are environment would definately improve. A fart in an enclosed space is worse than in a field for example. :-D
-
What do you think about governments telling people to reduce their carbon emissions by going to bed early?
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[^]
Again you need to stop thinking that governments are TELLING as the article show and states that they are starting a campaign to ENCOURAGE governments tell you do something by passing laws governments encourage you by starting campaigns. and to answer your question, I think going to bed has many benefits other than carbon reduction benifits.
As barmey as a sack of badgers
-
Again you need to stop thinking that governments are TELLING as the article show and states that they are starting a campaign to ENCOURAGE governments tell you do something by passing laws governments encourage you by starting campaigns. and to answer your question, I think going to bed has many benefits other than carbon reduction benifits.
As barmey as a sack of badgers
Again, what do you think about governments "encouraging" people to go to bed early to reduce carbon emissions.
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[^]
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
then surely reducing these emmisions cannot be a bad thing?
It is bad economically and societially. Good for governments though because they get more control. Good for special interest in government because they get billions of dollars.
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[^]
They will always evolve the means of gathering taxes
As barmey as a sack of badgers
-
Agreed. Reducing emissions earlier would've stopped certain events such as 4000 people dying in London in 1952 (although unofficial figures estiamte at around 12k) due to the heavy levels of smog caused by horrendous air pollution. Clean air act passes: "holy crap these buildings aren't actually black" people exclaim as they venture outside and give the walls a clean. I think there's been a couple of similar incidents around the world. So even if reducing wasteful emissions do or don't affect climate change, local are environment would definately improve. A fart in an enclosed space is worse than in a field for example. :-D
Smog is not carbon dioxide.
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[^]
-
Again, what do you think about governments "encouraging" people to go to bed early to reduce carbon emissions.
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[^]
again I think the benifits of going to bed have more postive effects than just reducing carbon emissions with proper amount of sleep you are more alert and the level of accidents are reduced, concentration levels are higher so taking all of those into consideration going to bed early has its benifits! just incase you misread what i have said if you take it alone on a per person basis the effects are low but with others benefits, you the person gain more. but if you take a country like Japan that are so technology dependant and have 50% of them doing this then hell yeah you would see a reduction in emmissions and a great benefit
As barmey as a sack of badgers
-
again I think the benifits of going to bed have more postive effects than just reducing carbon emissions with proper amount of sleep you are more alert and the level of accidents are reduced, concentration levels are higher so taking all of those into consideration going to bed early has its benifits! just incase you misread what i have said if you take it alone on a per person basis the effects are low but with others benefits, you the person gain more. but if you take a country like Japan that are so technology dependant and have 50% of them doing this then hell yeah you would see a reduction in emmissions and a great benefit
As barmey as a sack of badgers
That's not the issue. The issue is government telling people to go to bed early to
reduce carbon emissions
.
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[^]
-
Smog is not carbon dioxide.
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[^]
-
yes, that wasn't what I was indicating, I'm trying to indicate that even if the emission reduction plans don't do anything on a global scale, they do improve things on a local scale. Unless you like breathing through a car's exhaust pipe.
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[^]
-
That's not the issue. The issue is government telling people to go to bed early to
reduce carbon emissions
.
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[^]
im getting bored of repeat this part THEY ARE NOT TELLING YOU TOO they are trying to influence you into this
As barmey as a sack of badgers
-
im getting bored of repeat this part THEY ARE NOT TELLING YOU TOO they are trying to influence you into this
As barmey as a sack of badgers
And what do you think about that, specifically about the purpose of reducing carbon emissions as that is the reason of the government manipulating people into going to bed early.
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[^]
-
And what do you think about that, specifically about the purpose of reducing carbon emissions as that is the reason of the government manipulating people into going to bed early.
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[^]
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
-
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