|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..40..77..114..151..186~187~188~189~190..198..205..212..219..224~225~226 [Next] | ||||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
50 years of data from a system than is billions of years old.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7493 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: Exactly. Examining 50 years of data to make a conclusion such as GW or climate change is laughable when there is evidence of EXTREME climate change that happened throughout the age of the Earth (over 4 billion years) when man and industrial processes didn't even exist! That is what no one will comment on because you can't! The Earth's climate changed more dramatically over it's history than it has since man and our industrial processes have existed.
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts |
Since this thread is about to go around the same block it's been around a dozen times, how about we all pretend the thread is called -
"A New Report on Global Pollution" I think we can all agree that, whether or not mankind is affecting the climate, pollution is a real problem with long term consequences.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Yep.
I have said it many times.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts |
Ok, so without talking about massive regulations, which always becomes partisan, what would be the objection to laws imposing fines equal to the cost of repairing the damage - initial and future - + X percent.
Simplistic, but it would provide motivation for the companies to act responsibly separate from ideological reasons. Also, mandatory (stiff) prison sentences for any executive found to have known about the dangers/possible consequences of the policies of their companies. It seems to me that if the consequences - $$ - don't equal the gains it will never end. I also think we can agree that a lot of the problems stem from the fact that no one seems to go to jail, or are even very concerned about the possibility.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
But then we have to deal with the arguably biggest societal polluter on Earth...
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts |
Absolutely.
Why should Iceland be exempt. Seriously though, most corporations are global so...
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Who do we jail in China?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Who do we jail in China?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts |
Like I said it's simplistic, but all the back and forth between the believers and the deniers, prevents dealing with what everyone knows.
In principle though, what do you think?
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7493 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2018, NYCTwister wrote: YES! Totally agree. I do think emission regulations should be imposed on an industry emitting any by-product of their manufacturing process that needs to be released into the atmosphere. The emitted substance should have to be sampled to see what compounds are exactly contained and at what concentrations. NIOSH already has a book of TWA's (Time Weighted Averages)PEL's (Personal Exposure Limits) etc.... for compounds that can be hazardous at certain concentrations if exposed to. From this, emitted substances should have to meet the pre-determined personal exposure limits before being released into the atmosphere. Manufacturing companies should have to be audited annually or even bi-annually to see if their emissions meet the required levels. I would even go as far as; the government conducts random visits to sample the companies emissions to make sure compliance is still being met. For starters anyway.....
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
I have been for it in principle for a long time. The implementation is the rub. I have said it many times the issue is a political proxy war of ideology and nothing more. Useful idiots take hard line stands and the earth suffers. Go figure.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts |
RNK,
As a laissez-faire capitalist, I was thinking more along the lines of lessening regulation impact, and setting non negotiable penalties severe enough to trigger self regulation due to the companies own self interest. Regulating based on this opinion out that, crony capitalist manipulation, or who's screaming the loudest based on whatever partisan outrage, leads to nothing getting done. While not a perfect example, the BP oil spill did between 40 - 60 billion in damage, depending on which report you look at. From what I can gather they were fined somewhere around 22 billion, (after much legal wrangling) so there is no downside to taking the chance. In addition, had it been found that executives cut corners, weighing the increased chance of disaster against the cost savings, then there should be jail time for them - preferably hard labor cleaning up the actual damage. Simplistic and naive in today's world, sure; but until there are consequences that matter there is no reason to do the right thing. To Danny's point about China, I guess there would be nothing to be done about a company in China that does business solely in China. In any event they seem to be cleaning up their act, due to the fact that the place was becoming so polluted they don't really have a choice.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts |
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Quote:
along the lines of lessening regulation impact, and setting non negotiable penalties I don't understand this--I thought that was exactly what regulations were: non-negotiable penalties for certain acts.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2018, landmark wrote: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/25/us-de......456.html
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2018, landmark wrote: It's obviously unformed, and I'm no expert. I'm just trying to think of something other than what we have. Enforced regulation only works to a point, and is subject to abuse due to the effects of lobbying, cronyism, weak penalties etc. The main point is the penalty must far exceed the cost of breaking whatever rules are in place. There has to be some personal jeopardy for the decision makers. After the financial crisis if 2008, despite all that happened to regular people, no one went to jail. Fines, especially weak fines, aren't enough. I'm just throwing things out there.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2018, landmark wrote: Yeah, didn't know this. Since I'm no fan in general, I'll leave this alone.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: Do you think there could be an agenda on behalf of those who deny climate change? Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: Not quite. The data can be culled from much longer ago than that: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/ Anyway, even if we grant that the earth had similar climatic episodes in the very distant past (for different reasons, and before there were no humans around to experience the negative impacts), that still doesn't disprove anthropogenic cc today. Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
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..40..77..114..151..186~187~188~189~190..198..205..212..219..224~225~226 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 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 < |