Jump to content
The Corroboree
souljourney

Global Warming.... due to human activity or not?....

Recommended Posts

With the UN Climate change conference in Copenhagen coming up December 7, the debate on what is really going on is hotting up...

I was wondering what do people here think... coz i sure don't know what to think...

Check it out...

http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_ne...iew&id=4998

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...nth-public.html

http://www.news.com.au/features/british-cl...0-1225801905609

Doco's pointing to climate change is not due to human activity..but is a natural cycle... (..so they say in these docos)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEJo2HFy8Ek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

Edited by souljourney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesn't matter if it's man made or not.

what matters should be that our current modes ov power generation & consumption are unsustainable & we should be investing in alternatives that are.

the fact that alternatives are, in most cases, less polluting is a massive bonus.

also it can be shown that the ocean's pH levels are dropping as a direct result ov mans carbon emissions, there are no arguments that the acidification is due to natural cycles or because the sun is hotter etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming is the product of a fevered imagnation, t's a subversion of legitimate scientific inquiry.

Why?

Because subversives feel their gross displays of hubris deserve to be funded via taxation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The air in capital cities and srounding area's is unbreathable...

The loss of trees in remote areas and farming lands is destroying available water sources and increaing salination...

Human being are participating in systems which effectively poison their minds and bodies simulataneously...

there is no argument as to the path of the future...its just a matter of identifying the true problems with our consumptions.

The pacific island problem and the identification of their issues as a side effect of the "global warming" problem has already born fruit...at least now they know they will be underwater soon and maybe if they act quick willl have a chance of relocation...

smart consumption and energy use keeps you fit and healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Agreed,

with all replies actually. There! so now you have my opinion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes...

I agree Nabraxis and Reptile...

Pollution (and more than just CO2) is building up with our current mostly used forms of energy production/transformation...and too much we take from the earth...and ,yes, thanks for the link Nabraxis, acidification of the oceans...causing major health problems on many levels.

This has to change if, as a species, health of all life is valued..(no matter whether global warming is caused by Co2/human or solar flares...and that depends on how far in the Earths history one looks at...)

Global warming is the product of a fevered imagnation, t's a subversion of legitimate scientific inquiry.

Why?

Because subversives feel their gross displays of hubris deserve to be funded via taxation.

Stuff about hacked emails/scientific data being changed...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...found-media-mum

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/...ues-ostrich-act

which i'm sure most here are up on...

Ok... and this is where the questions come...about what is going on...which i don't have enough information about...but...

http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_ne...iew&id=4998

...seems to me what you are pointing to Garbage..yeah? The scientific studies have been manipulated for other purposes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oopse...

cant work out how to dlete this post so i'll add a nice photo..

post-6801-1259817826.jpg

post-6801-1259817826.jpg

post-6801-1259817826.jpg

Edited by souljourney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....the guy who was interviewed in the last link i made...

Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it doesn't matter if it's man made or not.

what matters should be that our current modes ov power generation & consumption are unsustainable & we should be investing in alternatives that are.

the fact that alternatives are, in most cases, less polluting is a massive bonus.

also it can be shown that the ocean's pH levels are dropping as a direct result ov mans carbon emissions, there are no arguments that the acidification is due to natural cycles or because the sun is hotter etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

This is exactly how I feel about the whole GW debate. Who could possibly think that current human practices are going to be anything but detrimental to the Earth? If it's not man-made now, it surely will be in a relatively short period of time, considering how exponential human industrialisation has occurred.

The worst case scenario is that we do nothing and GW is real and happening and we can't even slow it down. I would happily pay a few more hundred per year/buy fewer DVDs and takeout, than to risk doing absolutely NOTHING. It just doesn't make sense not to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Human industrialization has reached a point of sophistication such that we could easily produce twice as much product with half as much waste, trying to explain that to "industry" is what the debate is all about...

once consumers start to buy green products, use green energy and shun carbon costly products and production methods, "they" will get the message.

our world is gonna be so awesome, far out...can u feel the future pouring its genius into our present moments? Earth is number 1...hehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last extreme greenhouse event was during the age of the dinosaurs

and was probably for pretty much the same reason

the incredibly successful animals were totally stripping the planet of

trees

but when the trees are too successful it causes ice ages in my opinion

no risk of that any time soon

what amazes me is how little people talk about the range of different

effects that might arise

we are warmblooded unlike dinosaurs and quite possibly our

living range on this planet will be greatly reduced

a map i saw recently predicted an 8 degree rise for central brazil

in the not too distant future

we are talking average temperatures so the maximum temperatures

are higher again

this might be enough to kill off many of the species in that area

and make the place unlivable for humans

it is really appalling how the main stream media

puts out all the conspiracy propaganda on the internet

"the hackers have infiltrated the new world order and exposed their

plans for global domination"

what a heap of crap

more like the sour old america is being shown to be the backwards

vortex of vomit that it is

and the only way they can cope with the rest of the world

developing past their pathetic example is to poison the

minds of as many people as possible with fear and ignorance

are these people directly employed by the main stream media or do they push

their stuff on the propaganda networks just because they love and respect retards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both camps are right. There are natural cycles and there is man made change. The problem is that the natural cycles are a bit messy so they obscure any straight lines that man's emissions have caused. eg, we are in a cycle of solar cooling at the moment so this is used as an argument against global warming. but what happens in 15 years when we get to the end of the cooling cycle and then it suddenly starts heating up twice as fast. Then it will be too late to act and we will be facing natural cascade effects that we will not be able to stop.

I figure that we are better off paying a bit of extra tax to make our lifestyles more sustainable and so we can learn how to adjust to the new economy, rather than being faced with emergency restrictions 15 years down the track that will have a much more drastic and sudden impact on our economy and lifestyles. The 5% or even 10% we are aiming for areppissy amount when the crunch comes, so I see them as nothing more than proof of concept trials. We'll need 10 years to get them sorted out and by that time we should have a definite answer on global warming science [not that i doubt the science, but I just feel that in a few years time there will be enough evidence to convince the sceptics].

Our economy is only doing well because we have nearly free energy. If you shut off this energy source then we are suddenly no better off than in somalia. I think hedging our bets by making some small steps towards a more sustainable economy is the LEAST we should do. History tells us one thing time and time again which is that those who are prepared for change will fare better than those who arrogantly blunder into it.

The other argument about the carbon tax that annoys me is that people worry about a new tax. Taxes are money that is paid by the community to benefit the community. This tax will make us more economically secure by reducing our reliance on oil imports and by allowing us to leave uranium in the ground [where it is safest]. In fact, such a tax can make each individual less reliant on energy purchases. For example, the solar rebates have made thousands of homes independent from the grid. The solar water rebates have reduced the fuel burden of shitloads of people, for the next 10-20 years at least. These projects need to be funded and if a carbon tax is used to expand such rebates then I am all for it. In fact, I would like to see each and every future house to be completely independent from the grid and from the majority of water heating fuel. If it means we get forced into it by the government taxing us and then giving it bck to us in rebates, I am all for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A slush fund they say.

Indocrination of schoolchildren to create useful idiots has been ongoing for several decades in Socialist nations.

I named those brainwashed as Venutians in a censored topic.

The problem facing us today is what to do with them,there will be no concensus on that issue.

But do not be alarmed if you do not see that question raised at Copenhagen,brainwashing is not something even the US department of special plans would openly admit to.

The problem remains however as a lot of money,usually someone elses,has been invested in this nonsense so don't expect the stakeholders to fold and come clean.

I can add a bit more for US readers,the intrinsic meaning of Climate Change,nee Global Warming,is Taxation without representation.

In this case even the facts are not represented,merely the right to tax is not to be disputed.

In essence it's the payoff of a terror campaign.

Lets you,the youth,and him,the older generation fight.

Or else pay me,the instigator.

Edited by Garbage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How else wil they make up the billions of dollars in debt they have accrued over the past decade?

Useful idiots are better than plain, simple idiots.

Indeed what to do with idiots? and how to define them...

Brain washing is a sideeffect of a well orchestrated "implementation". Consider it moreso, education towards specified ideals.

It is as above regarding taxation, and its not like the super rich can get super richer, its just money that gets spent by someone...on beer or hotdogs maybe.

Changing of the times from personal cultural enemy towards a more unified and identifiable agonist...the environment...

its is the sign of changing times, the war between young and old will be fought in the homes of families and the young will inevitably win as the evidence for "better" lifestyles and longer lifespans adds up.

The best thing you can do to get payed is look forward and find a chunk of time-space in which you can help, $$$ or karma you choose percentages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHA...perhaps ure right...though intuition might perhaps dictate otherwise perhaps...perhaps everythings depending on the relationships of previously mentioned perhapses...and their interelative possible positions...perhaps.

perhaps.

Edited by reptyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another approach that has not been mentioned.

What if i were to present the theory of a theory tax?

It follows these lines,I present my theory that a tax to pay for my theory could be invested in and subsidised via Taxation.

I would go on that theoretically a theory that cannot be proven cannot be disproven.

So far so good but i would need a hook so my theory would capture the imagination of those who i theorised were ripe for it.

It would need to be a hook that involved everyone that could pay tax.

In short it would need to be a vaguely plausible fear of something,and offer a solution-tax

Fear of death,what if i theorised they would gladly pay a tax to live my theory if the theory tax can prevent death.

That is who you have on the Climate Change bandwagon,those who feel everyone else should be taxed as the theory means they will be none the wiser and they would never guess or even have access to justice.

Early adopters would be in on it and as such it would be a hereditary sinecure,those who were excluded from the loop would obviously be taxed as the dupes and this would pass from generation to generation and beyond.

It would be,why is this so?

The answer,it's just one of those things.

They say there is no good or evil,but look up.

Edited by Garbage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to be making an impact in some way, just look how many of us there now is. Since 1965 the worlds population has doubled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Remember we apparently started this planet off with just 2! (but that could be another argument) imagine what happens to this planet if we double again in less than that time again. :huh: I wonder when we hit saturation. We cull kangaroos, pigs, wild horses and the like to keep their populations in check while we are madly racing out of control to bring Australia's population up to 35 million. Given we are the driest continent on earth I have to wonder if that would be madness :huh:. Natural disasters don't knock enough of us off the planet to keep us in check. We haven't had a real down and dirty world war for awhile so no help there but I think when it does come it will have the potential to cut us back a bit :uzi: The UN claims more than 852 million people -- about 13 percent of the worlds population -- do not have enough food each day to sustain a healthy life :o I was once a true believer in carbon as the reason for the planet warming up. An inconvenient truth had me convinced. My faith slipped about 3 years ago when I decided to do some research of my own. Too many credible scientist's being shut out of the debate. The world was cooling :o Climate gate has pretty well settled it for me now. The planets population is in my opinion way more serious than carbon. I have no idea how you would solve it though. Maybe soylent green. I think I saw Ban Ki Moon hiring a copy down at blockbuster last night :P Maybe it's all going to end Dec 2012 anyway so party on? Just don't sucker us into a new tax! :ana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon Torsten hit the nail on the head.

This question came up on another board, with pretty much the same division of replies. I can only say that before anyone jumps on board the bandwagon promoting apparently credible-sounding sceptical arguments, read the science yourself. I've put links up on the other site to help folk to start, and for anyone who really wants to know it's a simple matter to find one's own scientific, as opposed to pseudoscientific, material. All it takes is a bit of determination to understand the difference, and to leave preconceptions at the door.

With respect to the government's ETS, it was a stinker, pure and simple, but the Greens' deconstruction of its worth (or lack thereof) is far more credible than the Coalition's. But again, don't take my word for it - cross-reference with the best science and figure it out for one's self. It might take a few days if starting from scratch, but better to be properly informed than to go off someone's say-so.

As to the CRU hack, watch

if reading pages of analysis is too tiresome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate Change Brainwashing

I wonder how Reefer Madness Deniers woulda bin treated way bacc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate Change Brainwashing

I wonder how Reefer Madness Deniers woulda bin treated way bacc?

 

cool....thanks

and thanks nabraxas and woodDragon for links...

information to consider..

yep Hutch.. An Inconvenient truth had me convinced too....

Edited by souljourney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×