|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..30..57..84..111..137~138~139~140~141..158..174..190..206..222..224~225~226 [Next] | ||||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7492 Posts |
A little hypothesis: If everyone does the right thing and does more of the right thing but yet temperatures increase (to levels that actually may indicate GW is happening but until then I'll play along with you believers for this little hypothesis) no matter what precautions/actions we do, will the believers finally understand that NATURE is in fact the dictator and controller?
I'll give my response, NO, the blame game will continue until the government has even more control and takes more money off it's people. Now, I am not saying go and pollute all you want! I have always believed we should do what we can to reduce toxins/pollution into our atmosphere.
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
I think you hit on major parts of the problem. So much of this issue is being co opted as a power grab.
This is really the issue. Nobody has said polluting is good or is for dirty water. But when the issue is used as a power grab it is a problem. We have seen this happen with other issues and see the results. Grab as much power as they can and it doesn't matter who is hurt along he way it is the greater good that matters. This is indeed why we have to be cautious about power given to these people or power given up by us.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7492 Posts |
I do agree. Thanks for clarifying my statement Danny, lol. But yes, I believe you are correct. But I also believe that humans are not as much of a problem as the hysteric believers say. Heck, I also do not believe GW is happening. I mean one half to 1 degree rise? Really? It comes down to using this as an argument for power and a way of funneling more money to the government(s).
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
No, no, no, the governments will not have even more control and take even more money off their people. Rather our governments will be taken control of by the big boy’s private international institutions. NGOs will run the game so speak. World governance is nothing like government.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
The Phobia of Dangerous Human-caused Global Warming
Professor Bob Carter It is scarcely necessary to tell an audience whose jobs rest upon their knowledge of nuclear science that a basic human emotion is fear of the unknown. For it is a commonplace amongst credentialled nuclear scientists that satisfactory and safe technological solutions already exist for both the generation of nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste. Yet public phobia regarding the nuclear industry remains strong, and is easily fanned by self-interested groups such as environmental lobbyists. The nuclear power “problem”, then, is almost entirely one of politics, not technology. Fear of invisible radiation is one thing, and fear of the invisible, reputedly-dangerous greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is another similar thing. For over the last few years, many good citizens and expert scientists alike have become strongly committed to the view that global warming caused by human carbon dioxide emissions poses a terrible danger to the future of planet Earth. As a consequence, climate change now ranks second only to terrorism as a topic for political grandstanding by western politicians. Some simple science facts To a scientist who is familiar with the factual evidence regarding climate change, this state of affairs is somewhat puzzling. For three key things are known. The first is that climate is always changing: change is what climate does. The second is that the rates and magnitudes of warming during the late 20th century fell within the limits of earlier natural climate change; that they had a mostly or even partly human origin cannot be demonstrated. And the third is that the average global temperature has not increased during the 8 years since 1998 (a warm El Nino year), despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide of 15 ppm (4%) over the same period. Yet the public perception remains that dangerous warming is occurring now, and that it is caused by industrial carbon dioxide emissions. How can such a yawning gap have developed between public perception and what empirical science is telling us? The answer, as any advertising executive can tell you, is money spent towards the specific end of spreading alarmism on climate. And lots of it: one estimate is that since 1990 the UN and western nations have spent more than $80 billion on climate research. Alarmist results from that research have been widely promulgated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and environmental NGOs such as WWF and Greenpeace. But despite the massive expenditure, and the best efforts of the thousands of scientists whose endeavours it supports, the reality is that the human influence on global climate that is predicted from computer modelling has not yet been detected. A taxpayer might be tempted to conclude that this particular haystack does not contain a needle at all, but in actuality the human signal that must be there (for humans indubitably have an effect on local climates) is probably simply obscured within the noise and variation of the natural climate system. How has this state of affairs come about? The public, then, has been gulled into believing propaganda and speculative computer models rather than being informed with basic facts about climate change. There are two powerful causes of this misinformation. First, the lobbying activities of environmental NGOs and their allies. Second, the now doctrinal, and indeed sometimes intimidatory, nature of modern Western education systems. The indoctrination acts on all school children, but is reinforced strongly for those individuals who pursue tertiary education and emerge as today’s climate research scientists. The problem can be understood by reading the following four letters in sequence. They were all sent to me in response to a newspaper opinion piece in which, as I do here, I questioned the prevailing mantra on the threat of dangerous human-caused climate change, and attempted to introduce some balanced commonsense into the public discussion. Letter 1 - From a School pupil’s parent I appreciated your recent article regarding the global warming hysteria. My children have been filled with dread by all of the hype coming through our school system, reinforced by interminable media support. I have patiently explained things as best I can, but being a simple grocer from the Midwest (USA) I have less credibility than the experts. I’d appreciate a bit of steerage towards some good information (in addition to your article) that will help me refute the current pop-culture pseudo-science. Letter 2 - From a University student My classes in Geology taught me how warming AND cooling trends occur throughout the history of the planet. Why is it so hard for people to understand that the planet is old and has had many episodes of climatic change? I write to you today, because I am now in my Junior year at a technical college in Virginia - I am enrolled in several Urban Affairs and Planning courses - one in particular is Environmental Planning. Time and again, I find myself at odds with nearly every one of my 55 classmates, in addition to the instructor, over the issue of global warming. Your article gives another voice to my own opinions. I guess my being 40+ years old in the mix of 20 year olds that surround me, perhaps may have something to do with it as well. Letter 3 - From a civil servant at the start of a professional career Earlier this year, the Financial Times Magazine contained an article about Sir Gus O'Donnell, Secretary to the Cabinet, Head of the Civil Service and former Permanent Secretary to H. M. Treasury. Here is the rhetorical question that he is reported to have posed to an audience of newly-joined civil servants (Whitehall's newest and brightest recruits): "When you go to dinner parties do you want to be able to say that you work with an accountancy firm and you've spent the day helping some company pay less tax? Or do you want to say you've been working with the environment department to help save the planet, or with the G8 group of countries to reduce child poverty?" Letter 4 - From a mid-career university climate teacher and researcher The reason for the apparent absence of public suppport from scientists for a sceptical position on climate change is professional intimidation. I have experienced it: letters to my CEO saying that I am irresponsible, snarly comments from students, personal threats from green wackos, condemnation by a national newspaper columnist (which caused me to take legal action), scowls and derision from all the folk who work for the government's main advisory department on climate change, and contempt from those of my colleagues who depend upon the research money on which global warming hysteria feeds. Those scientists and university teachers who wish to avoid unemployment will not want to appear to take a rational position on the climate issue, not publicly anyway. Conclusions These examples were sent to me from three different countries, and I am writing from a fourth about which I have direct personal knowledge; thus the indoctrination and intimidation problems that they exemplify seem likely to be global in scope. Rather than teaching about the Four Ages of Man, many western education and training systems have now reached the nadir of perpetrating instead the Four Stages of Indoctrination. Climate change is taught in school using the multitude of glossy publications and websites that are provided by alarmist interest groups, which include many government departments. The propaganda is as skilful as it is persuasive, for no expense is spared to spread the alarmist message. It is little wonder that well-meaning members of the public - not to mention sophisticated reporters writing for magazines such as Time, Scientific American and New Scientist - are duped into believing that a climate apocalypse is at hand. Climate reality is different, and is that the planet simply continues to go about the business that it knows best: change is what climate does, and nothing is more certain than that it will continue in future. The biggest problem with the present-day unwarranted focus on human-caused global warming is that the hysteria surrounding it has distracted governments from the real climate change problem. Which is the threat of natural climate change, the most damaging aspect of which in turn is the future coolings that will occur; indeed, the next may already have started. Government climate planning is needed, but in a way that is responsive to both coolings and warmings, as they occur and if they prove dangerous. It is in this sensible fashion that we manage the aftermath of other unpredictable natural hazards, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Control of human carbon dioxide emissions, however strict it is, will likely make no measurable difference to future climate. Attempts to “stop climate change” in this or any other fashion are therefore expensive exercises in utter futility. Fear of radiation and fear of chimerical climate change well up from similar depths in the human psyche. Those who understand their true scientific basis have a deep obligation to allay the widespread and unnecessary public fear that exists regarding these phenomena, not to stimulate it. Professor Bob Carter is a geologist and environmental scientist at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, where he is engaged in palaeoclimate research.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 26, 2016, RNK wrote: Yes RNK, I would really like to see you pitch this your view to any government or company or heck, even a group of ordinary people. You would say: "Listen, I don't believe in GW and humans don't have any part in it what so ever. What ever we as humans do, doesn't matter, because nature is in fact the dictator and controller. We have no affect to it. Still I want you to cut your pollution. I mean, it doesn't matter if you do or don't, because it doesn't anyway have any affect to climate or anything, but still it would be nice. Thank you." that's a funny thought. 😊 You gave your hypothesis. Let me give you a little fact: when humans have been doing and are doing all the wrong things and at the same time the climate is increasingly changing and warming, still the deniers and sceptics seem to keep on denying and keeping up the blame game and accusing everybody else of being hysterical and coming up with all sorts of conspiracy theories. And you know, nature, is not some kind of mystic force that is separate of us. We are part of it and being like that, we most deffinitely affect the whole of it. Again, I don't think this is even in any way under debate here, that do our actions affect the nature or even the climate for that matter. Like rockwall said: "And another "intellectually honest" poster completely misses the point of the entire discussion here and ignores the fact that nearly every skeptic here has also stated that they agree that some of global warming can be attributed to humans." So rockwall acknowledges that GW is happening and that humans have some affect to it. And most part I see this being the debate here, that how much is it affecting and what could be done to it. This is one thing that really makes this debate here very confusing, that those who think like rockwall in his statement don't see any problem in accepting also completely views like RNKs, who doesn't think there is GW happening at all and humans wouldnt be able to even affect it if it was happening. Or if not accepting, still not in a single word mentioning that they don't agree with these kind of comments. Like just here on this page, dannydoyle and RNK are being all brotherly, even when dannydoyle has been trying to get few times more solution based discussion going on and RNKs view is very clear that in his opinion we don't need any solutions because there is no problem. And that's all good and fine - brotherly love is beautiful - but it just gets confussing because you are not trying to get any kind of clarity to the issue but rather team up against your shared enemy. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Okay you feel a need to say that fire is bad... and keep saying fire is bad. You go around putting out fires if you see them?
Prometheus has been chained to that rock for millennia. Now what?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
If cow flatulence is an issue, was it a good thing all the Buffalo were hunted? What was dinosaur farting like? Just trying to get a sense of things.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 26, 2016, RNK wrote: Do you believe the ozone hole is real? Here is an example of a man-induced problem that is being rectified by the elimination of CFCs in the atmosphere. Nature was not much of a dictator in this case. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/health/ant......healing/ Quote:
Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“ – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 26, 2016, tommy wrote: Leveling our global economy and setting up huge infrastructure fails?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 26, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote: Exactly like this. Not blaming but pondering. Very good. 😊 |
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7492 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 26, 2016, Gorlzax wrote: Gorlzax, let me give you ONE fact that you obviously can't understand (which may not be your fault as I don't know if you have a background or any formal education in science): The climate has been increasingly changing and warming AND cooling when MAN WAS NOT EVEN ON THE EARTH! And the climate altered and changed more drastically than a meager .5 degree in those times when MAN was not present. So yes, you are correct that I believe man and our actions are not a stronger influence than nature and our complex atmospheric/solar system we reside.
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
Gorlzax New user 39 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 27, 2016, RNK wrote: RNK! You should know by now that I do not have any formal education in science, I have mentioned it here, at least few times. And I just love it, when you are showing off with this sciency vibe and at the same time sharing this as your information source: Quote:
On Aug 31, 2016, RNK wrote: Here is also a straight link to the main page of that website where you gather your information: http://www.wnho.net I recommend all to check it out - its worth seeing! |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 27, 2016, RNK wrote: Do you agree that man-made CFCs were a major cause of the depletion of the ozone layer? Also, do you agree that smog in LA and China (two of the more notorious smog locales) is due to human-induced pollutants in the atmosphere? Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18012 Posts |
What is your devine goal ... A constant 72 degrees? Who get's to set the standard? Who gets to decide which animals can live or die? Should we try to prevent all species from going extinct? We all breath CO2... So who get's to regulate our breathing? AND aren't greenhouse gasses a GOOD thing? Without them no crops would grow. And those pesky PETS... Who can have those CO2 producing tag alongs? Who determines that?
I think that the fact that certain people have made hundreds of millions of dollars off of this scam should be enough to wake people up .... Daytona Beach looks exactly as it did Two decades ago when I first came here!!!!! The sun heats the earth ... always has...
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7492 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 27, 2016, Gorlzax wrote: Well Gorlzax- I went through all your posts here and read nothing about your science background. Very well possible I missed it, so please provide us with the posts you are referring to that you told us about your education and science background? RNK
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (153 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..30..57..84..111..137~138~139~140~141..158..174..190..206..222..224~225~226 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.16 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |