Why Global Warming such a whipping boy around here?

[dontbuypotteryfromme]

Yeah the main bodies who research this thing are not even discussing it anymore they have put this idea through the ringer for twenty years and agree it is man made.

At the moment this theory is enough to be credable and anything else is beating on a dead horse.

It now falls into the creation evolution debate category.

In otherwords people are going to have to come up with more than stories of hot summers when they were a kid to de bunk it.

http://climatecommission.gov.au/reso...ended-reading/

[DBR]

Originally Posted by dontbuypotteryfromme

Yeah the main bodies who research this thing are not even discussing it anymore they have put this idea through the ringer for twenty years and agree it is man made.

At the moment this theory is enough to be credable and anything else is beating on a dead horse.

It now falls into the creation evolution debate category.

In otherwords people are going to have to come up with more than stories of hot summers when they were a kid to de bunk it.

At any time when you see scientists saying "the debate is over," you should at that time debate it more heavily than ever. That scientific absolutism is not refreshing, it's not reassuring. It's incredibly frightening. As just an individual on the planet, I don't want a lot of terrible things to happen to my environment. I also don't want to be punished, financially or in other ways, for all of this because even if it is anthropogenic, making the Prius mandatory for everyone isn't going to touch the problem.

[ralfy]

Originally Posted by DBR

At any time when you see scientists saying "the debate is over," you should at that time debate it more heavily than ever. That scientific absolutism is not refreshing, it's not reassuring. It's incredibly frightening. As just an individual on the planet, I don't want a lot of terrible things to happen to my environment. I also don't want to be punished, financially or in other ways, for all of this because even if it is anthropogenic, making the Prius mandatory for everyone isn't going to touch the problem.

For me, only a non-survivalist will take the luxury of debating this issue "more heavily than ever." A survivalist, on the other hand, will likely assume a worst-case scenario. That means "a lot of terrible things" will "happen to [our] environment" and that we will be "punished" not just "financially" but in many ways. Far from helping or even attempting to deal with this issue, governments and big business will continue arguing that everything is fine or that we should look into the matter further, thus appeasing the sheeple and giving them a false sense of security as they go on with "business as usual."

And since this is a board for survivalists....

[MIL-DOT]

Originally Posted by ralfy

.... A survivalist, on the other hand, will likely assume a worst-case scenario......
And since this is a board for survivalists....

Or you could look at it like "a survivalist" is merely someone that attempts to get past his normalcy bias,put aside emotion, and consider the facts and the evidence, regardless of how unpleasant the possibilities. It's not so much that we want or assume the worst case scenario, but that we're not only willing to consider it, but willing to prepare for it. But....that's only if it passes muster, which AGW doesn't.
And both government and corporations, being the enforcement and propaganda arms of the PTB, actually are NOT "arguing that everything is fine or that we should look into the matter further, thus appeasing the sheeple and giving them a false sense of security as they go on with 'business as usual'." They are both actively and enthusiastically perpetuating this.

[DBR]

Originally Posted by ralfy

For me, only a non-survivalist will take the luxury of debating this issue "more heavily than ever."

Well then, you would be wrong.

A survivalist, on the other hand, will likely assume a worst-case scenario.

I understand that. My objection is in being taxed for being a sentient being that expels carbon and other liberal B.S.

I don't believe it is anthropogenic.

I don't believe the "scientists" doing a lot of the studies because of "Climategate."

I don't respond well to what is essentially bullying. One group of scientists telling another group of scientists that the debate is over is total B.S. as far as I'm concerned. There is a lot of evidence that points to a lot of this being junk science.

As far as turning back the hands of time if the climate really is changing the way some people are reporting, go ahead and buy a Prius. If we could eliminate every vehicle and make everybody drive a Chevy Volt, it wouldn't turn this around.

Folks that really believe in this think that human beings are so destructive that we can do anything and so productive we can do anything, too. The reality is somewhere in the middle of both extremes...which tends to be the reality with anything.

[devron]

Originally Posted by ralfy

For me, only a non-survivalist will take the luxury of debating this issue "more heavily than ever." A survivalist, on the other hand, will likely assume a worst-case scenario. That means "a lot of terrible things" will "happen to [our] environment" and that we will be "punished" not just "financially" but in many ways. Far from helping or even attempting to deal with this issue, governments and big business will continue arguing that everything is fine or that we should look into the matter further, thus appeasing the sheeple and giving them a false sense of security as they go on with "business as usual."

And since this is a board for survivalists....

Survivalists come in different types, though. Post SHTF, is it even a question that carbon emissions will go down? A survivalist would already know how to and is currently shrinking their so-called "footprint". They already know how to live without gas and modern privilege.

It's the old lighter vs. friction fire sort of debate. A survivalist knows how to make due without and might even prefer to do so. A prepper is probably dead without his butane lighter. I think there's a fundamental difference between the two.

[dontbuypotteryfromme]

Originally Posted by DBR

At any time when you see scientists saying "the debate is over," you should at that time debate it more heavily than ever. That scientific absolutism is not refreshing, it's not reassuring. It's incredibly frightening. As just an individual on the planet, I don't want a lot of terrible things to happen to my environment. I also don't want to be punished, financially or in other ways, for all of this because even if it is anthropogenic, making the Prius mandatory for everyone isn't going to touch the problem.

So you are a creationist?

If you look at the link people are also debating different solutions. All of them will affect you financially. Just like those who dealt in asbestos,tobacco or lead.



Sometimes change is hard for people.

[DBR]

Originally Posted by dontbuypotteryfromme

So you are a creationist?

No, at the time in my life when I had enough faith in anything to consider myself a Christian, I thought stories like "Creation" and "Noah's Ark" were stories told by primitive peoples to possibly ignorant, illiterate and superstitious peoples that still transferred historical information. Just in a way that they could understand.

I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in "Creation" has it has come to be known.

I don't even know how my Agnosticism is supposed to play in this except for the fact that you want to try to link what you find to be ignorant in a religion with the mistrust of scientists on this issue.

You see, I trust science. I don't trust scientists, there is a difference. You want me to have blind faith in scientists. You are nothing more than another pushy proselytizer but your religion is science and your high priests are scientists. But, again, they proved with "Climategate" that they are just as corrupt as Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart were. But because "global warming" is something that the mainstream media champions, they didn't report on it like they do when some old and wrinkled evangelist makes off with the bank account and some young hottie.

BTW, your assertion that people that don't believe as you do are basically people that didn't think black human beings were real human beings and therefore it was okay to enslave them that's just insulting and stupid.

[fr1]

Maybe because it's not real???? Only a way for Gore and Obama to steal more $$$ and the go Green BS ...Wake up !!!!

[dontbuypotteryfromme]

Originally Posted by DBR

No, at the time in my life when I had enough faith in anything to consider myself a Christian, I thought stories like "Creation" and "Noah's Ark" were stories told by primitive peoples to possibly ignorant, illiterate and superstitious peoples that still transferred historical information. Just in a way that they could understand.

I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in "Creation" has it has come to be known.

I don't even know how my Agnosticism is supposed to play in this except for the fact that you want to try to link what you find to be ignorant in a religion with the mistrust of scientists on this issue.

You see, I trust science. I don't trust scientists, there is a difference. You want me to have blind faith in scientists. You are nothing more than another pushy proselytizer but your religion is science and your high priests are scientists. But, again, they proved with "Climategate" that they are just as corrupt as Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart were. But because "global warming" is something that the mainstream media champions, they didn't report on it like they do when some old and wrinkled evangelist makes off with the bank account and some young hottie.

BTW, your assertion that people that don't believe as you do are basically people that didn't think black human beings were real human beings and therefore it was okay to enslave them that's just insulting and stupid.

I am saying that at one point real normal people believed it was evil to free black people. That is quite a different mind set from what we have today.

If you can accept that then accepting change is easier.

Otherwise I use sources like the climate comission and the CSIRO rather than whatever you are suggesting. They have a proven track record for being right about stuff.

Therefore you would need to show an equally reputable source to discredit them. And stop hiding behind terms like the mainstream media and conspiricies.

There is a difference between blind faith and telling a Neurosurgen how he is doing it wrong.

[MIL-DOT]

I'm still waiting on the pro-AGW guys to respond to the concerns we have about the absolutely insane degree of oppressive controls and taxes that are being suggested to combat AGW ( I think it was mocasin that said 'entire cities will have to be abondoned'). They keep sidestepping these legitimate concerns,responding over and over with "It's real, it's true, it's proven...." while avoiding any discussion about the highly alarming "remedies" being proposed. Remedies that are largely unlikely to have any affect other than making life on this planet a living hell for anyone trying to run everything from a household to a buisness.

[DBR]

Originally Posted by dontbuypotteryfromme

I am saying that at one point real normal people believed it was evil to free black people. That is quite a different mind set from what we have today.

If you can accept that then accepting change is easier.

It's not simply about being unable or unwilling to adapt or to accept or adapt to change. You just don't get it, a large body of people don't believe the scientists are being honest in their representation of the problems we face.

Otherwise I use sources like the climate comission and the CSIRO rather than whatever you are suggesting. They have a proven track record for being right about stuff.

I'm glad you could find a commission that has a proven track record of being right about "stuff." Because, as you might have already figured out, this is important stuff we are discussing.

Therefore you would need to show an equally reputable source to discredit them. And stop hiding behind terms like the mainstream media and conspiricies.

You mean "conspiracies" or "a conspiracy theory."

"Climategate" is not a "conspiracy theory." It actually happened and the scientists discredited themselves. I didn't do it to them, they did it to themselves. They are playing with statistics and passing it off as science.

Furthermore, I am using terms like "mainstream media" because it is an accurate descriptor for the entity I wished to speak about at that time. The mainstream media here is liberal and they have a demonstrable liberal agenda when it comes to gun control and every other sacred cow the liberals worship at the hoofs at. As I pointed out, they didn't give "Climategate" much coverage because it attacked one of their sacred cows, "global warming." Since you brought religion into the fray, I simply said the mainstream media didn't give "Climategate" the coverage they would have a fallen television evangelist. Which is also demonstrably true.

There is a difference between blind faith and telling a Neurosurgen how he is doing it wrong.

It's "Neurosurgeon." In the arena of ideas, it would be great if you could keep up while you're preaching and proselytizing. It matters.

I'm not telling anyone that they are doing it wrong. I am saying that it has been proven that they have ulterior motives that were plain to see upon examination of their E-mail communications with each other at a point they thought they were safe to be candid. Because they have those ulterior motives, I, and millions of other people, don't trust them.

[DBR]

Originally Posted by MIL-DOT

I'm still waiting on the pro-AGW guys to respond to the concerns we have about the absolutely insane degree of oppressive controls and taxes that are being suggested to combat AGW...

Do not hold your breath. Those controls and taxes are precisely what the program is about.

If "global warming" is occurring, even if we caused it, as I said before, there is nothing that is going to stop it. All of the taxing and tyranny they can dream up isn't going to change anything except control and tax people.

They keep sidestepping these legitimate concerns, responding over and over with "It's real, it's true, it's proven...." while avoiding any discussion about the highly alarming "remedies" being proposed. Remedies that are largely unlikely to have any affect other than making life on this planet a living hell for anyone trying to run everything from a household to a buisness.

It's because they don't care. They are, very much, like religious zealots who don't care about the oppression and misery that they create.

The way I entered this thread was by saying that any time you hear that debate is over and the science is in...look closely. On a totally practical level, how in the hell can all of the discussion be over when everything is in flux and in a state of change? They just want to bully and browbeat their opponents into submission.

[scudderfunk]

Originally Posted by DBR

Do not hold your breath. Those controls and taxes are precisely what the program is about.

If "global warming" is occurring, even if we caused it, as I said before, there is nothing that is going to stop it. All of the taxing and tyranny they can dream up isn't going to change anything except control and tax people.



It's because they don't care. They are, very much, like religious zealots who don't care about the oppression and misery that they create.

The way I entered this thread was by saying that any time you hear that debate is over and the science is in...look closely. On a totally practical level, how in the hell can all of the discussion be over when everything is in flux and in a state of change? They just want to bully and browbeat their opponents into submission.

I, I just don't understand how anyone could be so close minded. You are completely throwing everything out and refusing to look at the issue critically because of your opinion that it's all bull****. That's not how critical thinking works. If you would spend any time at all researching the subject, you would see that the scientist are almost completely unanimous on the subject. Minus the few that have been bought and paid for. It's easy to figure out on your own. Just do some research on the world and how it works. Weather, climate, the oceans and plants. I guarantee if you did your own homework, you might change your position.



^ that's not my opinion, it's a fact. For every 3 posts you can find about it being a hoax, you will find 97 that agree ACG is a very real issue. It's hardly a conspiracy to raise your taxes and enslave the population. Like I said, do your own homework. Don't listen to me or anyone else. Learn about your world.

[DBR]

Originally Posted by scudderfunk

I, I just don't understand how anyone could be so close minded.

That's pretty much the opposite of how I feel. I already understand how people could be so open-minded their brain falls out.

My favorite time of year is RIGHT NOW. Actually, favorite month is October. It has become noticeably warmer the last few years as my October leaf change has moved roughly three weeks into November or so. I have always hated summer and after I developed some allergies, I'm not too fond of spring, either.

I don't want it to get warmer, hotter, whichever you prefer. I have no vested interest in wanting the climate to change.

But I know that the only constant is change and we are judging some really life-changing POLITICS on a little over a century of really accurate recorded temperatures and projections and models that are, again, suspect because of the people involved in the studies.

Let me ask you this, what in the **** are you going to do to stop this if it is true? What in the **** is the government going to do, this government, coming world government, whatever government? You're not going to make China and India have cleaner technologies because they are just getting into the swing of things...what are you going to do to stop it?

Please explain how taxing the **** out of regular working people is going to stop this? Please explain how taxing the **** out of industry, corporations, etc., which all gets passed on to the working people, is going to stop this?

If you give me a good enough answer. I'll worry more about it. If not, well, it's like worrying about my eventual death. I know it is going to happen but unless specific information is acquired, why go through the terror of it all?

How does crippling everyone stop this?

[ralfy]

Originally Posted by MIL-DOT

Or you could look at it like "a survivalist" is merely someone that attempts to get past his normalcy bias,put aside emotion, and consider the facts and the evidence, regardless of how unpleasant the possibilities. It's not so much that we want or assume the worst case scenario, but that we're not only willing to consider it, but willing to prepare for it. But....that's only if it passes muster, which AGW doesn't.
And both government and corporations, being the enforcement and propaganda arms of the PTB, actually are NOT "arguing that everything is fine or that we should look into the matter further, thus appeasing the sheeple and giving them a false sense of security as they go on with 'business as usual'." They are both actively and enthusiastically perpetuating this.

Actually it does...big time:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15...-one-pie-chart

not to mention the NAS final report and BEST findings. The latter is incredibly ironic because deniers supported BEST.

The last part of your argument is garbage as governments and businesses in a global capitalist system do not profit from "perpetuating" this as it works against increased profits from sales of consumer goods and financial speculation.

The same governments will not act on the matter because too much in profits are at stake:

The History of Climate Change Negotiations in 83...

Meanwhile, count on the denial machine to keep rolling:

The Koch Brothers & Their Amazing Climate...

[DBR]

What's next? The Flintstones used to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs?

[ralfy]

Originally Posted by DBR

Well then, you would be wrong.

I'm obviously right, as a survivalist will prepare for more droughts and floods. A non-survivalist will wish them away.

I understand that. My objection is in being taxed for being a sentient being that expels carbon and other liberal B.S.

That makes absolutely no sense at all, as if you'd acknowledge AGW as long as you're not taxed.

I don't believe it is anthropogenic.

Who cares? You're not a scientist.

I don't believe the "scientists" doing a lot of the studies because of "Climategate."

Corporate shill garbage from the denial machine. Don't believe in it.

I don't respond well to what is essentially bullying. One group of scientists telling another group of scientists that the debate is over is total B.S. as far as I'm concerned. There is a lot of evidence that points to a lot of this being junk science.

Bullying? You actually think scientists and government control the global economy and mass media?

Of course there's a lot of evidence that shows that this is "junk science." How else will sheeple be told that everything is fine?

As far as turning back the hands of time if the climate really is changing the way some people are reporting, go ahead and buy a Prius. If we could eliminate every vehicle and make everybody drive a Chevy Volt, it wouldn't turn this around.

Of course, it wouldn't, as electric cars still require resources, including oil for the manufacturing process.

Now, as for oil, look up "peak oil."

Folks that really believe in this think that human beings are so destructive that we can do anything and so productive we can do anything, too. The reality is somewhere in the middle of both extremes...which tends to be the reality with anything.

Folks that believe that are called "survivalists." Those who aren't will either take the other extreme or the middle, i.e., it won't as bad as we think.

[ralfy]

Originally Posted by DBR

What's next? The Flintstones used to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs?

Well, how do you think the denial machine became so effective?

[DBR]

Originally Posted by ralfy

I'm obviously right, as a survivalist will prepare for more droughts and floods. A non-survivalist will wish them away.

I'm not wishing anything away and if you think that is my whole position on the matter, you are obviously not a very intelligent person.

That makes absolutely no sense at all, as if you'd acknowledge AGW as long as you're not taxed.

How are taxes going to stop this, please explain.

Who cares? You're not a scientist.

You're not either, there, we're even. Happy?

Corporate shill garbage from the denial machine. Don't believe in it.

So, you are denying the "Climategate" E-mails? Seems as though you are the denial machine.

Now, as for oil, look up "peak oil."

Look up "paranoia" and "fear."

Folks that believe that are called "survivalists." Those who aren't will either take the other extreme or the middle, i.e., it won't as bad as we think.

I've been into this stuff all of my life. I have watched the prophets of doom come and I have watched them go. I am ready, willing and able to confront anything that happens. Are you? If the answer is "yes," then you have nothing to fear.