Global Warming Swindle

silk

Well-Known Member
hey hedmekanik , staying focused on Kyoto is cool. U.S. signed but refuses to ratify ( same with Australia) it. Green economies like Netherlands and Japan will get credits because they are already under the quota, these credits will be SOLD to countries that breach their ratified quota. Emerging countries such as China are exempt (this is one of the grounds the U.S. objects to)from the protocol.

Really it looks more like a superpower game then save the environment of some 5-8% CO2 emissions. If the U.S. was to ratify, the "aid" the environment needs to happen between 2008-2012. It seems very far fetched to me, that the U.S. needs a U.N. treaty to regulate environmental emissions. In this war you are waging, aim for the enemy not the decoy.
See dead wood like me sees the same problems continuing from the same situations. The U.N. has nothing to do with domestic policy. I would think we'd start there first before we tackle the globe. I hope all is well in your camp.

Cheers!

Easier said then done. Cheers!
https://www.rollitup.org/../members/hedmekanik.html https://www.rollitup.org/../members/myninja.html
 

Wavels

Well-Known Member
^^^
True words Mr.silk.
:joint:

I thought of Skunky when I read this article today...interesting perspective on this issue....here it is:
:blsmoke:

We're hurting Britain, not saving the planet
By Chris Gibson-Smith
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 01/04/200

Climate change is a fascinating subject. At stake are some huge issues that really matter, so it is a subject that we should be debating in a deep and thoughtful fashion. As a scientist at my core, though, I feel that the quality of the public debate has been awful. It has been characterised by exaggerations, extreme assertions by people with no understanding of the science, and character assassinations of those who question the orthodoxy.

Full article:
We're hurting Britain, not saving the planet | Dt Opinion | Opinion | Telegraph

:peace:
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
I see where you are coming from 7x. You really want to help the environment, you just feel that we are maybe going about it the wrong way? Also, that Gore is out for personal reasons rather than any true desire to help the Earth.

i'm afraid I don't know enough about Mr Gore to make judgements on his character. It seems that Gore is getting in the way of environmentalists if it is the case that he is out for himself. I think his job has been done, and he's trying to overdo it... which could destroy all the GOOD work he has achieved.

this is correct. my greatest fear is that these meddling hobbyist fools are going to to really screw stuff up. they are so loud and attract so much attention that the stupid people are beginning to mistake them for experts, this is very very dangerous. i am not even touching on the political aspects of their power grab scheme, the environment is what i'm talking about.

yeah, back (90's) when Gore was just a mouthpiece and he acknowledged his limitations as such, he really helped get some people thinking. unfortunately, even then, he tried to use the environment as a "wedge issue" rather than develop a comprehensive approach to it...
 

Wavels

Well-Known Member
Paging Algore... Paging Albert Gore... H.L. Mencken on line 4...

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
-- H L Mencken
 

ViRedd

New Member
Paging Algore... Paging Albert Gore... H.L. Mencken on line 4...

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
-- H L Mencken
That cracked me up. *lol*

Mencken is one of my favorites of all time. So smart and such a cutting wit.

"Single men know a lot more about women than married men do. If that weren't so ... the single men would be married too." --- Mencken.

Vi
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
lol, that's it Wavels! Mencken sounds like a guy with solid understanding.

the fact that leftist-would-be-enviro-lovers can not piece together the very obvious, perhaps painfully obvious, evidences of the real gore leaves me with a growing cynicism and the dire perception that there could actually be a large part of our country completely unwilling to do their part; so eager to pawn off any responsibility to their overseers.

the tree of liberty is indeed beginning to wilt and the will of the people to act on behalf of greater good is wanning. the time is approaching.



Goreites, be brave enough to compare your leader to the man you declare the "Oil Man", the great offender of environmental justice, George W. Bush.


Gore's house:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.
Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy
than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month.
In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published on Sunday, April 29, 2001 in the Chicago Tribune [/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home [/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Rob Sullivan[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford. [/FONT]
 

bobaganuuush@707

Active Member
Academics who jump on the global warming bandwagon are far more likely to get big research grants than those who express doubts -- and research is the lifeblood of an academic career at leading universities.



Seems as though corporations from both sides are dumping money at this problem, it also seems obvious that humans might be the most harmful force acting on the planet, sure a volcano or meteor could raise enough dust and or noxious chemicals to ruin life as we know it, that fact does not give us free reign to act like the brainless, consumers we have been in the past.
We can't keep carrying on like Santa and Ultraman, are going to do some magic dance and using the spirit of christmas to rid the oceans of pollution. Or maybe we should and let "god" fix it.



 

skunkushybrid

New Member
Academics who jump on the global warming bandwagon are far more likely to get big research grants than those who express doubts -- and research is the lifeblood of an academic career at leading universities.



Seems as though corporations from both sides are dumping money at this problem, it also seems obvious that humans might be the most harmful force acting on the planet, sure a volcano or meteor could raise enough dust and or noxious chemicals to ruin life as we know it, that fact does not give us free reign to act like the brainless, consumers we have been in the past.
We can't keep carrying on like Santa and Ultraman, are going to do some magic dance and using the spirit of christmas to rid the oceans of pollution. Or maybe we should and let "god" fix it.
It's already begun... Look around you and you will se a global effort to reduce pollution. Do you honestly believe we can just stop? Things aren't that easy. IMO the debate is over. Pollution is at the forefront of the global mindset, and things are changing.
 

Danuogma

Active Member
There is no doubt that the planet is heating up, but most of this heating is due to natural sun cycles. Our planet has heated up and cooled down for eons, it is completely natural! The politicans and the talking heads want to milk this for all its worth so they say it is completely man made! To them global warming = more taxes and more control over our day to day lives.
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
There is no doubt that the planet is heating up, but most of this heating is due to natural sun cycles. Our planet has heated up and cooled down for eons, it is completely natural! The politicans and the talking heads want to milk this for all its worth so they say it is completely man made! To them global warming = more taxes and more control over our day to day lives.
Wow. Thanks for the insight.

NB, this should be read with a heavily sarcastic tone.
 

BaySmoke408

Well-Known Member
I totally believed the global warming issue until i read Michael Crichton's State of Fear which is fiction but uses real world published scientific information to write his story. this book changed my whole mind about global warming, he makes some extremely moving points about why its a crock of shit, and its a pretty good story all together

Everybody interested on this subject should READ THIS BOOK
 

4theist20

Well-Known Member
I love to see how the anti-global warmists tend to talk about how certain politicians could gain this and that from the 'global warming hysteria' But are you so daft as to believe that the pockets of some pathetic environmental organizations could really be deeper than those of the God damned oil conglomerates? Our very own fucking president is an oil tycoon.

You seriously expect me to believe that those special interest groups which live off of money would support tree huggers when they could support multi-billion dollar companies?

Also, it is understood AND accepted by the scientific community that human beings are having a major negative impact on the globe. It doesn't take a genius to look out your window in most any large city and see the shit-brown sky on the horizon. You think that has no affect on the environment? Shit, I guess we'll all see anyway. If what the scientists are saying is true, we are already going to feel the affects of our mistake for at least a couple of centuries. I hope you SUV lovers are right. I really do.

Anyway, just my two cents.
 

ViRedd

New Member
420 ...

I don't know how old you are, but take it from an guy who is approaching ancient ... the air in our major cities has improved dramatically over the past 30 years. Don't believe all the propaganda the world socialists are spewing your way.

Vi
 

Garden Knowm

The Love Doctor
VI - Everyone agrees that over all air quaility has dramtically improved i the UNITED STATES over the past 100 years.. even in the past 30 years..

enviromental groups, the epa etc all agree..... soory bro NO fight hear.... but you can probably find another rock to turn over..

:)
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
420 ...

I don't know how old you are, but take it from an guy who is approaching ancient ... the air in our major cities has improved dramatically over the past 30 years. Don't believe all the propaganda the world socialists are spewing your way.

Vi
The reason for this Vi' is the fact that big businesses have moved their factories abroad, 3rd world countries are the favourite, cheap workforce, cheap everything. These emissions are not claimed in the reports. So the overall emissions in major Cities may have gone down, but they have gone up in other parts of the world. Our country (UK) is the biggest liar on this score. We only claim the emissions from our own country which, when you consider most of the major industries have moved out of this country in the past few years, is not really saying much.
 

silk

Well-Known Member
The reason for this Vi' is the fact that big businesses have moved their factories abroad, 3rd world countries are the favourite, cheap workforce, cheap everything. These emissions are not claimed in the reports. So the overall emissions in major Cities may have gone down, but they have gone up in other parts of the world. Our country (UK) is the biggest liar on this score. We only claim the emissions from our own country which, when you consider most of the major industries have moved out of this country in the past few years, is not really saying much.
A reason is manufacturing has moved abroad. Another reason is environmental cleanup by the same corporations with state and federal backing has been going on, globally there are many similar initiatives . By ignoring the rest of the facts and just stating one you support, you feed into the hype, you become the problem. This world is so much more complicated. I'll give you an example. The U.S. is the most polluting country according to CO2 emissions reports by the U.N.. It is also the richest country in the U.N. Now the rest of the worst offenders are all 3rd world countries such as China.

What does that tell you?
 

ViRedd

New Member
"What does that tell you?"


It tells me that you, and others have been deluded. China, Mexico and other third-world countries have been the worst polluters on the planet LONG before we started outsourcing industry. See the article below from 1970:

Vi



Monday, Nov. 30, 1970

Communist Pollution


U.S. industry is often painted as the chief villain by conservationists, but pollution is hardly unique to capitalist nations. It is often worse in Communist countries, where technocrats toil to boost industrial production with little thought to environmental consequences.

In Russia, a huge chemical plant was built right beside a beloved tourist attraction: Yasnaya Polyana, Leo Tolstoy's gracious country estate. Unmonitored fumes are poisoning Tolstoy's forests of oak and pine, and powerless conservationists can only wince. With equal indifference, the Soviet pulp and paper industry has settled on the shores of Lake Baikal. No matter how fully the effluents are treated, they still defile the world's purest waters.

The level of the Caspian Sea has dropped 81 ft. since 1929, mainly because dams and irrigation projects along the Volga and Ural rivers divert incoming water. As a result, Russia's caviar output has decreased; one-third of the sturgeons' spawning grounds are high and dry.

Meanwhile, most municipalities lack adequate sewage treatment plants, carbon monoxide chokes the plateau towns of Armenia, and smog shrouds the metallurgical centers of Magnitogorsk, Alma-Ata and Chelyabinsk.

Capitalist Garbage. Despite all this, Communist countries have a few environmental advantages over Western nations. For one, they give a relatively low priority to consumer goods. The
Russians, for example, have few cars, scarcely any leaded gasoline and nothing like the plethora of disposable diapers, plastic containers and nonreturnable bottles that clog capitalist garbage cans. Paradoxically, Communist regimes also can—at least in theory—cure by fiat the very environmental ills they cause by runaway industrialization.

To sample Communism's environmental efforts, TIME Correspondent Burton Pines recently visited Poland's most polluted region: Upper Silesia, a mineral-rich and heavily industrialized area near the Czech border. In 1965, the provincial government decided that unless it strengthened its 15-year-old environmental control program, Upper Silesia was headed for ecological ruin. As a result of ensuing reforms, one environmentalist told Pines, "I think we started fighting pollution in time."

At first glance, such optimism seems premature. Upper Silesia is still blighted by strip mines and slag heaps. Its rivers remain gutters carrying the wastes of 4,000 factories. The veil of soot and gases is so thick in some areas that only 60% of normal sunshine ever reaches the ground.
But Pines also saw signs of progress. In Upper Silesia's grimy cities—Katowice, Swietochlowice, Chorzow—bulldozers are pushing slag heaps into craters caused by crumbling mines. Carefully planned parks and green belts are starting to sprout on the reclaimed land. Government officials now demand attention to "the human element" in all new projects—less noise, better designed apartments, conveniently located cultural facilities. More important, the causes of pollution are slowly being controlled. In the past four years, 14% of the mining and power industries' capital investment went for environmental safeguards. Compulsory filters in factory stacks have cut air pollution by 25%.

Hard Questions. Even so, Upper Silesia's environmentalists find their task difficult. "The managers of industry do not like us," says Professor Tadeusz Ziel-inski, a planning commissioner who sits on central boards to oversee industrial decisions. "We ask them hard questions: At what cost to society have you fulfilled your goals? How dirty have you made the air and water? How many people have you concentrated together?"

New laws spell out high fines and long jail sentences for plant managers who cause pollution. Results are slow. If all goes according to official plan, by 1985 Upper Silesia may have removed the slag heaps and repurified most of its rivers. But sulphur-dioxide emissions from smokestacks remain an unsolved problem—one that still confronts all industrialized nations.
 

4theist20

Well-Known Member
I don't know how old you are, but take it from an guy who is approaching ancient ... the air in our major cities has improved dramatically over the past 30 years. Don't believe all the propaganda the world socialists are spewing your way.
ViRedd, I'm sure you are very old, and very wise. I believe the scientific community before I take your word for it though. :peace:
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
A reason is manufacturing has moved abroad. Another reason is environmental cleanup by the same corporations with state and federal backing has been going on, globally there are many similar initiatives . By ignoring the rest of the facts and just stating one you support, you feed into the hype, you become the problem. This world is so much more complicated. I'll give you an example. The U.S. is the most polluting country according to CO2 emissions reports by the U.N.. It is also the richest country in the U.N. Now the rest of the worst offenders are all 3rd world countries such as China.

What does that tell you?

The reason our emissions have gone down so much is because of industries moving abroad. If you were to add up our off shore industries' emissions the total of our emissions will have gone up, not down. You didn't mention us, the UK. When you add up our off shore industries we make it into the top 5. Without those we are nowhere to be seen.

So maybe I should have said the main reason, or the most important reason, or the reason we should ignore the least.
 

silk

Well-Known Member
"What does that tell you?"


It tells me that you, and others have been deluded. China, Mexico and other third-world countries have been the worst polluters on the planet LONG before we started outsourcing industry. See the article below from 1970:

Vi

Speaking of reading Vi, try reading my post again and ignore the quote above it.
 
Top