|
 
Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! Please  login or  register to post messages and view our members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, encrypted messages, file attachments, board customizations, and much more!
|
 johnm214
 
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 7,022
Loc: Americas
|
 Re: Nature is bad [Re: numonkei]
#8612313 - 07/09/08 09:53 AM (4 months, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Luddite wins this thread just for posting a penguin with a flowery lei on. 
http://planetinperil.ytmnd.com/
|
Luddite
fossil fool
Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1,761
|
Re: Nature is bad [Re: johnm214]
#8614526 - 07/09/08 07:37 PM (4 months, 24 days ago) |
|
|
Global Warming Madness and How to Stop It
Written By: Joseph Bast
Published In: Heartlander
Publication Date: February 1, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The temperature on New Year’s Day in Chicago was a balmy 50 degrees F. More evidence of global warming? Hardly.
The five New Year’s Days with the highest temperatures occurred in 1876, 1897, 1892, 1890, and 1891, all long before human greenhouse gas emissions could have played a role in changing climate. The one thing we know for sure about the weather is that it is always changing.
But the warm weather will fuel more hot rhetoric about global warming, a public policy issue that could have a major effect on our freedoms and our pocketbooks in the coming years.
Why it Matters
Global warming is the biggest environmental issue of our time. Its political and economic impacts will be larger than those associated with any other environmental issue.
Government power: Public policies being proposed at the international, national, and state levels in the name of “stopping global warming” would result in a massive increase in the size and power of the state. To reduce emissions, governments must raise energy costs directly, with taxes, or indirectly, with mandates and subsidies.
Either way, hundreds of billions of dollars a year in wealth or economic activity will be sucked up and redistributed by governments. For advocates of limited government, the debate over global warming is one of the preeminent issues of our time.
Economic harm: Energy is the “master resource,” used in the creation of nearly all other goods and services. Making energy artificially scarce therefore imposes enormous economic costs. Global warming legislation being considered by Congress would more than cancel out the beneficial effects of the Bush tax cuts.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions even modestly is estimated to cost the average household in the U.S. a cool $3,372 per year and would destroy 2.4 million jobs. Electricity prices would double, and manufacturers would move their factories to places such as China and India that have cheaper energy and fewer environmental regulations.
Social movements: In 2004, the leftist leaders of the environmental movement decided to make global warming the “global crisis” that would save their reputations, create an excuse for a full assault on businesses and capitalism, increase their influence over the Democrat Party, and fund their organizations in perpetuity. The movement’s leaders recognize that losing on this issue would further discredit a movement that has already squandered the public good will earned during the 1960s and 1970s.
On this aspect of the global warming debate, the leading environmentalists are correct. If they win this issue, billions of dollars in government funds will flow into the coffers of radical environmental groups, giving them the resources and stature to implement other parts of their anti-technology, anti-business agenda.
Can We Win?
Fighting global warming extremism is essential if we are to stop a resurgence of radical environmentalism and left liberalism on a wide range of other public policy issues. But can we win? Yes.
The scientific community is on our side: Despite claims of a “consensus” in favor of alarmist predictions, surveys of scientists show extensive opposition to alarmism. A 2003 international survey of climate scientists (with 530 responding) found only 9.6 percent “strongly agreed” and 25.3 percent “agreed” with the statement “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.”
A 2006 survey of scientists in the U.S. found 41 percent disagreed that the planet’s recent warmth “can be, in large part, attributed to human activity,” and 71 percent disagreed that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.
A recent review of 1,117 abstracts of scientific journal articles on “global climate change” found only 13 (1 percent) explicitly endorse the “consensus view” while 34 reject or cast doubt on the view that human activity has been the main driver of warming over the past 50 years.
The public is open to persuasion: Despite the left’s massive investment in “ending the debate,” opinion polls show the public is deeply divided on the issue. According to a 2006 poll, about 70 percent of Americans believe global warming is occurring, but fewer than half (41 percent) believe human activities are responsible.
“While 41% say global warming is a very serious problem, 33% see it as somewhat serious and roughly a quarter (24%) think it is either not too serious or not a problem at all. Consequently, the issue ranks as a relatively low public priority, well behind education, the economy, and the war in Iraq.”
The political battle is an open field: Only 58 percent of Republican voters believe global warming is occurring and only 24 percent believe human activities are responsible, making this a safe issue for Republicans to address. Republicans in Congress in the past have voted strongly against legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, including against McCain-Lieberman proposals that come up considerably short of the goals set by the Kyoto Protocol.
Political opposition to global warming legislation is especially strong in the South and West, where coal and oil are major economic resources and sources of employment (though not in California, Oregon, and Washington). It will also grow stronger in the Midwest and Northeast when manufacturers and unions realize the real agenda of the global warming alarmists is to put them out of business by raising energy costs.
The left doesn’t have a solution: The left’s own computer simulations show that global emission reductions of 60 to 80 percent would be required to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Even greater reductions would be required of the U.S. and other developed countries to make up for rising emissions from Third World countries. The technology simply does not exist to achieve those reductions. Their plans are therefore “all pain and no gain.”
Politics and Global Warming
Unfortunately, global warming is an issue that is well suited to political demagoguery, which can be defined as pandering to misinformed voters and promising unrealistic solutions. Since opinion polls indicate a majority of the public believes warming is happening, politicians might think the safe strategy is to say “I believe global warming is a serious problem and I support measures to reduce global warming pollution by supporting renewable fuels and energy efficiency.”
Such politicians should be “outed” for claiming to be smarter than scientists who have studied climate for many years and for using scare tactics to win elections. For example, an opponent might say:
“I’m not a scientist, but I do know there’s still a lot of debate going on in the scientific community about whether the recent warming spell is natural or man-made, and whether or not it will continue. How can Senator Smith be so sure he’s got the whole truth?”
“I’m old enough to remember when we were setting records for cold weather in the 1970s and scientists were predicting Global Cooling. I’m glad Senator Smith wasn’t around back then, or we’d be paying for government programs to make the world warmer, not cooler.”
Politicians who set lofty goals for emission reductions or increased use of renewable fuels with compliance set five years, 10 years, or even 20 years in the future should be “outed” for promising more than they can deliver and hiding from voters the real costs and consequences of their votes. For example, an opponent could say:
“Senator Smith talks about reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 percent, 30 percent, or more, but he doesn’t tell us these cuts would cost the average American household $3,372 a year and destroy 2.4 million jobs. He’s pretending his ‘solution’ would be free and easy. It won’t be either.”
“Senator Smith talks about how much lower emissions will be in 2012, 2020, and even 2050, but he must know this Congress cannot commit future Congresses to carrying out its will. Two years, four years, and six years from now, Congresses will be voting on whether or not to reduce emissions and at what costs. Senator Smith can’t predict their decisions, and he can’t claim credit for what they might decide to do.”
Conclusion
Global warming isn’t just a scientific issue. Economists are more likely than meteorologists to know what future emission levels will be, and they say the computer models used to predict future warming use flawed data, resulting in “garbage in, garbage out.”
Global warming is also a political issue. Each of us, as citizens and voters, must decide how much power to surrender to governments and environmental advocacy groups in exchange for vague promises of reducing a small and hypothetical risk that wouldn’t emerge until a century from now.
It’s our freedom and money that hang in the balance. It should be our choice.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20549
--------------------
http://www.protestwarrior.com/
http://www.thepeoplescube.com
http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/Climate.htm
  
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 2,329
|
Re: Nature is bad [Re: Luddite]
#8614848 - 07/09/08 08:38 PM (4 months, 24 days ago) |
|
|
I'm not even gonna bother to read it as supernovasky has already (in another thread that was locked) thoroughly rebuked all of the bullshit pseudoscience contained in right-wing links. Given that the source, The Heartland Institute, which has long served as a propagandist for the tobacco industry, once published a list of something like '500 prominent scientists who oppose global warming' & almost immediately after its release at least dozens had wrote & issued public statement demanding that their names be taken off the list as neither they nor they research they have done supports this claim (& probably even more did once they found out about it), & that it was a complete misrepresentation, then this propaganda mouthpiece has zero credibility when it has to fabricate supporters. Its judgment also has to be extremely poor that they could actually think they would get away with this stunt.
P.S. I started to read the article, but then the first line...
Quote:
The temperature on New Year’s Day in Chicago was a balmy 50 degrees F. More evidence of global warming? Hardly.
... was so laughable that there was no need to continue.
P.P.S. I need a brief check because I was curious & found this in regard to the organization's response to the scientists who asked that their names be removed from the list, "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" & found this:
Quote:
"They [the scientists] have no right—legally or ethically—to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography."
This organization's a fucking joke & a complete circus act, & so is anyone who would post their garbage.
--------------------
"Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every pine needle, every sandy shore, every humming insect is holy... We are part of the earth and it is part of us... The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth." - Chief Seattle
"...the role our nation has taken... of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments... we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values... When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (07/09/08 10:16 PM)
|
 ScavengerType
Just Another Douchebag
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 1,680
Loc: your mom's place
Last seen: 49 seconds
|
Re: Nature is bad [Re: numonkei]
#8614967 - 07/09/08 09:11 PM (4 months, 24 days ago) |
|
|
were these really your own words Luddite? Just curious it may be the first time I've really heard you actually argue anything.
But I will be fair with you it is possible that since I read the satanic bible once (much easier read than christian bible) and never chose to embrace the "ideology" to it. We may all be satanists in league with the devil. But just ask yourself one question Where are all the easy women going is it heaven or hell? Come on, it's gota have it's advantages man.
On a more serious note though the assertion that mankind could not sustain itself at this level without chemical knowledge is false (except perhaps pertaining to refrigeration). Is actually false Manure could easily be used in replacement of chemical fertilizers and green revolution foods were engendered as an agricultural project through selective breeding. That and a firm disrespect for mono cropping would feed the world fine at today's rate. There have even been debates as to how well green revolution crops have improved nutritional volume instead of just volume.
--------------------
"We have the satisfaction to find, that in nature there is wisdom, system, and consistency. For having, in the natural history of this earth, seen a succession of worlds, we may from this conclude that there is a system in nature ... by which they are intended to continue these revolutions. But if the succession of worlds is established in the system of nature, it is in vain to look for anything higher in the origin of the earth. The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning and no prospect of an end."
- James Hutton
|
Luddite
fossil fool
Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1,761
|
|
The Metaphysics and Some Politics of Global Warming
Regarding Bret Stephens's "Global Warming as Mass Neurosis" (Global View, July 1): In 1992, at my 25th Harvard College reunion, we got an accurate forecast of the "ideological convenience" driving global warming alarmism. In a discussion of the Rio Summit on environment and development, one of my classmates effused, "Who would have thought that the environment would bring us world government?" In other words, the advent of world-wide "pollution" controls will lead to world government (which all of us statist Harvard grads eagerly await).
On the other hand, climatologist Patrick Michaels has noted that we merely need to "follow the money" to explain global warming enthusiasm among scientists and academicians: Huge amounts of taxpayer dollars are running down the drain of climate research, and the people raking in the bucks are the same ones spouting the global warming nonsense.
Grant W. Schaumburg Jr.
Boston
Here are the global warming movement's cultic parallels, many of whose characteristics can be found in Walter Martin and Ravi Zacharias's famous 2003 book, "The Kingdom of the Cults":
(1) Leadership by a New Age prophet -- in this case, former Vice President Al Gore.
(2) Assertion of an apocalyptic threat to all mankind.
(3) An absolutist definition of both the threat and the proposed solution(s).
(4) Promise of a salvation from this pending apocalypse.
(5) Devotion to an inspired text which embodies all the answers -- in this case Mr. Gore's pseudo-scientific book "Earth in the Balance" and his new "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary.
(6) A specific list of "truths" which must be embraced and proselytized by all cult members.
(7) An absolute intolerance of any deviation from any of these truths by any cult member.
(8) A strident intolerance of any outside criticism of the cult's definition of the problem or of its proposed solutions.
(9) A "heaven-on-earth" vision of the results of the mission's success or a "hell-on-earth" result if the cultic mission should fail.
(10) An inordinate fear (and an outright rejection of the possibility) of being proven wrong in either the apocalyptic vision or the proposed salvation.
Finally, since this cultic juggernaut has persuaded (brainwashed?) a majority of Americans into at least a temporary mindset of support for its pseudo-religious scam, Mr. Stephens's label of "mass neurosis" seems frighteningly accurate.
Jim Guirard
Alexandria, Va
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
--------------------
http://www.protestwarrior.com/
http://www.thepeoplescube.com
http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/Climate.htm
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 2,329
|
Re: Nature is bad [Re: Luddite]
#8617955 - 07/10/08 03:35 PM (4 months, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Wow, another bullshit link filled with absurd statements & claims that merely preach to the choir... mostly like articles & stories in support of "creationism"... how surprising from you. Let me guess: Adherents of Darwin's theory of evolution are not scientists nor do they represent the views of the scientific community, but instead constitute a "cult" driven by a desire for one-world government & the enslavement of humanity to enrich & empower their secret puppet-masters?
--------------------
"Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every pine needle, every sandy shore, every humming insect is holy... We are part of the earth and it is part of us... The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth." - Chief Seattle
"...the role our nation has taken... of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments... we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values... When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." - Martin Luther King Jr.
|
 heeelllooo
Stranger
Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 1
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
Re: Nature is bad [Re: numonkei]
#8624122 - 07/12/08 12:51 AM (4 months, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Just because a buch of shroomed up hippies talk a load of hippy bullshit about the environment doesn't make it right for another bunch of shroomed up hippies to ignore the vast vast majority of the worlds scientists on thier very real consensus on mans vast contribution to the unprecedented acceleration of global warming caused by humankind's activities.
|
Gastronomicus
3 Oh! 3
Registered: 03/31/05
Posts: 4,108
Loc: Bat Country
Last seen: 1 hour, 50 minutes
|
Re: Nature is bad [Re: Luddite]
#8624193 - 07/12/08 01:46 AM (4 months, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Sometimes I just hope that nothing changes and the world does turn in to a barren hellscape, if only to rid us all of you and your ilk Luddite
--------------------
Wasilla redneck
|
ScavengerType
Just Another Douchebag
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 1,680
Loc: your mom's place
Last seen: 49 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Gastronomicus said:
Sometimes I just hope that nothing changes and the world does turn in to a barren hellscape, if only to rid us all of you and your ilk Luddite
why not just hope for rapture?
--------------------
"We have the satisfaction to find, that in nature there is wisdom, system, and consistency. For having, in the natural history of this earth, seen a succession of worlds, we may from this conclude that there is a system in nature ... by which they are intended to continue these revolutions. But if the succession of worlds is established in the system of nature, it is in vain to look for anything higher in the origin of the earth. The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning and no prospect of an end."
- James Hutton
|
zorbman
Bush Recession2008
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 3,634
|
|
Quote:
were these really your own words Luddite? Just curious it may be the first time I've really heard you actually argue anything.
Argue anything?
That would imply a give and take process.
That user does not engage in two-way dialogue of any kind. His position would be destroyed immediately if so. The sole purpose of his presence is to annoy people. (Commonly known as a "troll").
He should have been banned a long time ago.
It is a shame because the actual topic of this post is well worth debating and may well be the most crucial point of contention of Western Civilization in the last thousand years.
But back to the show..
"Jerry!!"
"Jerry!!"
"Jerry!!"
--------------------
"I cannot morally blame all Americans for allowing, for instance, the birth of the Federal Reserve System (a private cartel with full control over the issuance of national debt) and the money destruction that has followed. They are simply ignorant about it and don't know what happened or what is happening. They think that prices go up rather than than dollars go down." - John Kenneth Galbraith
Edited by zorbman (07/12/08 10:43 AM)
|
Gastronomicus
3 Oh! 3
Registered: 03/31/05
Posts: 4,108
Loc: Bat Country
Last seen: 1 hour, 50 minutes
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
Gastronomicus said:
Sometimes I just hope that nothing changes and the world does turn in to a barren hellscape, if only to rid us all of you and your ilk Luddite
why not just hope for rapture?
Because Jesus will fuck me, Nature may not...
--------------------
Wasilla redneck
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 40,763
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 12 hours, 36 seconds
|
Re: Nature is bad [Re: zorbman]
#8624542 - 07/12/08 07:56 AM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Not to mention he is clearly a person who has had several accounts banned permanently in the past.
|
Gastronomicus
3 Oh! 3
Registered: 03/31/05
Posts: 4,108
Loc: Bat Country
Last seen: 1 hour, 50 minutes
|
Re: Nature is bad [Re: Redstorm]
#8625351 - 07/12/08 12:46 PM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
I got a dollar for the next mod who perma's him
--------------------
Wasilla redneck
|
ScavengerType
Just Another Douchebag
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 1,680
Loc: your mom's place
Last seen: 49 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Gastronomicus said:
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
Gastronomicus said:
Sometimes I just hope that nothing changes and the world does turn in to a barren hellscape, if only to rid us all of you and your ilk Luddite
why not just hope for rapture?
Because Jesus will fuck me, Nature may not...
As is my understanding the rapture is supposed to just take all the Christians away and leave the rest. Frankly, I'm just saying any time god.
--------------------
"We have the satisfaction to find, that in nature there is wisdom, system, and consistency. For having, in the natural history of this earth, seen a succession of worlds, we may from this conclude that there is a system in nature ... by which they are intended to continue these revolutions. But if the succession of worlds is established in the system of nature, it is in vain to look for anything higher in the origin of the earth. The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning and no prospect of an end."
- James Hutton
|
Mushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 6,861
Last seen: 4 hours, 3 minutes
|
|
Quote:
EntheogenicPeace said:
P.S. I started to read the article, but then the first line...
Quote:
The temperature on New Year’s Day in Chicago was a balmy 50 degrees F. More evidence of global warming? Hardly.
... was so laughable that there was no need to continue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
That's pretty much undeniable, and it's only going to get worse for urban areas. They're ALL hard surfaces -- glass, steel and concrete. Not much there to dissipate heat -- but a lot there to suck it up and hold it. All those AC units that keep everyone cool do nothing but kick out hot air.
Any reports about rising global temperatures that involve how hot a large metropolitan area is are complete bullshit -- any global warming aside, those cities will OF COURSE be hotter today than they were 50 years ago SIMPLY EBCAUSE OF THE CITY ITSELF absorbing and holding more heat, producing more heat, and dissipating less heat.
--------------------
i finally got around to making a sig
revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might
grar.
|
zorbman
Bush Recession2008
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 3,634
|
|
Quote:
Gastronomicus said:
I got a dollar for the next mod who perma's him
Quote:
Seuss said:
posts created for the intent of baiting others into a flame war will result in a ban. We may have ignored this rule in the past, but it is going to be more strictly enforced.
I guess they've gone back to ignoring it. 
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/3618741#3618741
--------------------
"I cannot morally blame all Americans for allowing, for instance, the birth of the Federal Reserve System (a private cartel with full control over the issuance of national debt) and the money destruction that has followed. They are simply ignorant about it and don't know what happened or what is happening. They think that prices go up rather than than dollars go down." - John Kenneth Galbraith
| |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
