pouët.net

Go to bottom

Global Warming is a SCAM

category: general [glöplog]
why not? is it the "psychadelic" part that makes it incompatible? eh, yeah, i guess taking psychedelics would make you live in a phantasy world where money is not a necessity and we all live off nothing but Rainbow drops in the land of Carebears.

I guess we can just drop the psychedelic theme and go straight for hardcore raging against the machien post-rock instead:


So called facts are fraud
They want us to allege and pledge
And bow down to their God
Lost the culture, the culture lost
Spun our minds and through time
Ignorance has taken over
Yo, we gotta take the power back!


i kinda like that better anyways...its more reality based
added on the 2009-12-14 17:15:06 by button button
Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man.

Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world.
added on the 2009-12-14 17:41:19 by krabob krabob
Why do we never get an answer, when we're knocking at the door?
With a thousand million questions, about hate and death and war.
'Cause when we stop and look around us, there is nothing that we need.
In a world of persecution, that is burning in its greed.
added on the 2009-12-14 17:51:54 by krabob krabob
From Climategate, through carebears to a bunch of filthy hippie lyrics. How? o__0
added on the 2009-12-14 17:54:15 by NoahR NoahR
You don't really need any curves to 'believe'. Check satellite images of the North Pole. It's going to be ice-free in summers soon, something that has never been observed before.

Walking to the North Pole will soon be = jumping off the boat onto the little icefloe that covers the pole. :) Instead of an incredibly arduous journey that men have spent decades to attempt, and a goal that men have died to reach. But nahh, "There is no global warming. It's just getting hotter." (exact quote from Dubya)

Three islands in the Maldives will be gone in the next Atlas editions. But nahh, the ocean level isn't rising.

But yeah, I know it's mostly a trollbait/bullshit-fest thread, ie. a normal Pouet thread. :)

It's not so much about countering global warming, it's much too late for that now. It's more about keeping our habitat livable ;) Even fucking hamsters clean their cage - problem is, hamsters do not sit in boards of directors of the corporations that make the mess. Let's change that right now! We couldn't be worse off :D
added on the 2009-12-14 17:54:18 by Photon Photon
...you don't understand, the guy is just afraid the commies take his car or somewhat, that's all, he mustn't had a single political thought in his life before.
added on the 2009-12-14 17:58:47 by krabob krabob
Quote:
You don't really need any curves to 'believe'. Check satellite images of the North Pole. It's going to be ice-free in summers soon, something that has never been observed before.


which proves what? Do you know for a fact that it isn't a wind phenomena packing the ice mass together or part of a cycle the north pole goes through? IPCC had to change their estimate from 2035 to 2350 when the data got out.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

added on the 2009-12-14 18:05:16 by NoahR NoahR
Quote:
My advice to people today is as follows:
If you take the game of life seriously,
if you take your nervous system seriously,
if you take your sense organs seriously,
if you take the energy process seriously,
you must turn on, tune in, and drop out.

Timothy Leary
added on the 2009-12-14 18:06:56 by krabob krabob
If the tens of thousands who die each year as a direct consequence of pollution were actually killed by terrorists, paranoid conservatives like rtype would be the first to scream for rapid action and billions spend.
added on the 2009-12-14 18:23:14 by monroe monroe
The difference between greenhouse gas emissions and other types of pollution is that global warming is one of the few environmental problems that can get really out of hand all by itself. Other kinds of pollution cause roughly a linear amount of damage: put x amount of toxic waste into a river and cause kx amount of damage. Roughly. But putting x amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere doesn't cause it to get kx warmer, it causes the rate of warming to increase by kx. Roughly. So the amount that it gets warmer is kxt^2, where t is the amount of time since it was put into the atmosphere (very roughly).

So we can stop dumping toxic waste into the oceans (in theory) and stop causing more damage. But at some point, even if we stop adding more CO2, the Earth's temperature will still rise and rise, because the sun keeps adding more energy that can't escape through all that extra CO2. There are factors that will cause the levels of CO2 to return to normal, but there are also factors that could cause the rate of CO2 to skyrocket out of control, like increased temperatures releasing stored CO2 from the bottom of oceans, or causing very large areas of forests to disappear.

Since the heating caused by human-caused global warming is a power function wrt time, it's not too surprising that in its inception we aren't seeing much heating from it. If you don't see any significant amount of heating that is proven to be from human caused global warming, don't worry. It will come.

Note, I'm talking about the actual problem of global warming. Don't assume that just because I am saying "global warming is real" that I also support any means whatsoever (including unethical, ineffective or destructive ones) to counter it.
added on the 2009-12-14 18:26:02 by yesso yesso
Err, oops, it's only kxt^2 if we keep adding more greenhouse gases at a constant rate. It's "only" kxt if we add some and then immediately stop (which won't happen).
added on the 2009-12-14 18:33:08 by yesso yesso
yesso: personally, I'm not saying that the mechanics behind CO2 warming the Earth isn't "real" either. What I question is the cause of that CO2 production. From what I have read, there is plenty of reasonable scope for it to be being caused by any number of alternative factors. Including natural climatic cycles (which, until advances in technology, we have never been able to track and witness) and solar energy. Which is something we have very little control over, no matter how much government uses it as an excuse to taxes us into medieval abject poverty.

What I am saying is that I do not trust politicians to present a genuine solution to it, or any other issue for that matter but particularly one like Global Warming which offers them unprecedented scope for control and taxation. They cannot be trusted and until we sort out these crooks who infest each and every nation's political structure, by chopping their heads off and replacing them with genuinely benevolent "leaders", then I am not listening to a single word they say on this issue. Not them or their bogus paid-for "scientists"
added on the 2009-12-14 18:45:00 by button button
i mean, come on, they're mocking us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp18LlWWSBw

they themselves know damn well that man-made Global Warming is a crock of shit!
added on the 2009-12-14 18:49:47 by button button
Look what has been done for the CFC and ozone depletion: If laws and replacements hasn't been done in the 80's we would all have been killed by the time. Hooray for the ecology in politic, brother.
added on the 2009-12-14 19:06:07 by krabob krabob
rtype- In my post, I've ignored any CO2 changes that aren't caused by humans, because they are irrelevant to the argument. Pretend the CO2 caused by humans is somehow distinguishable from naturally occurring changes in CO2. Then the argument holds for that human-caused CO2. We don't need to measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to see how much CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere. We just need to, for example, measure the amount of CO2 coming out of a car and multiply it by the amount of cars. There is no way this CO2 is just magically vanishing. There is no way this CO2 is not causing global warming.

Of course, the actual amount is debatable. How it compares, at the moment, to natural changes in CO2 or natural fluctuations in climate is debatable. But it doesn't ultimately matter. It's a question of arguing the time scale of when we are going to see the steep slope of this power function: 200 years, or 2000 years? It's important for public policy to determine the correct answer, but it's irrelevant to whether global warming is real or not.

To me, the whole debate looks like this:

scientists: "We are in a train that's speeding toward a cliff. We need to start braking now or we will ride right off that cliff."

statisticians: "We aren't falling off a cliff. These charts and graphs clearly show that our trajectory so far is perfectly level."
added on the 2009-12-14 19:09:16 by yesso yesso
Then let them bring in legislation Krabob. If it's a life and deaf situation as they tell us, let them use their governmental powers to draw up the laws which halt the production of gas guzzling luxury limos and 4x4s in favour of electric powered cars, create housing regulations which force all new homes to be built to more "energy efficient" standards, legislate against companies packaging their products in non-biodegradable plastics. There is a LOT that can be done which doesn't involve hiking up the price of essentials with bogus "eco-taxes" which will only endup in the pockets of UN cronies and only has the effect of putting resources out of the reach of those who cannot afford to pay for it.

I do not see your "utopian" justice coming from the plans so far being discussed by politicians.
added on the 2009-12-14 19:16:24 by button button
Quote:
[...]From what I have read, there is plenty of reasonable scope for it to be being caused by any number of alternative factors. Including natural climatic cyclessolar energy. Which is something we have very little control over


Wrong. We had a control over it: Look what Earth look without the sun:

BB Image

... We actually burn more energy per day to run our northern lifestyle, than the sun bring to earth. Look impossible at first, so how does it work ? the answer: Oil.
Oil is sun energy in the form of organic remains. We have burn in one century an energy resource that the sun took millions years to create. Slowly made/ quickly burned.
added on the 2009-12-14 19:19:07 by krabob krabob
Quote:
You don't really need any curves to 'believe'. Check satellite images of the North Pole. It's going to be ice-free in summers soon, something that has never been observed before.


And how fast would it have melted if not for man-made greenhouse gasses? You sort of do need a lot of data to "believe" that we should feel guilty at all for this development. And even if we should, what we can DO about it is another matter entirely. Paying emission taxes probably makes YOU feel better after you've been convinced you should hate yourself for not living in a dirt cave (clever, isn't it), but what GOOD does it actually do?

If the EU spends EUR x billion per year for the next 100 years to cut CO2 emissions by y% overall, how much will that have lowered the temperature of the Earth by 2110? And what positive effect will that reduction in temperature have had? And what other things might we have done with the money?

The answers to those questions aren't at all easy and are certainly not found in a satellite image of the North Pole.
added on the 2009-12-14 19:22:47 by doomdoom doomdoom
Quote:
scientists: "We are in a train that's speeding toward a cliff. We need to start braking now or we will ride right off that cliff."


These scientists don't say so. All 31.000 of them. And I think it is an odd think to say since the whole alarm is blown

We now understand that it is not man-made global warming but, Mann-made global warming
added on the 2009-12-14 19:25:21 by NoahR NoahR
Quote:
let them use their governmental powers to draw up the laws which halt the production of gas guzzling luxury limos and 4x4s in favour of electric powered cars.

You are right, we must the sooner the better halt the production of 4x4s.
For the rest, you will not see such things as electric cars for everybody: it's impossible to produce, first reason: there are not enought lithium on earth, second: electric energy is mainly created by oil atm. (and uranium is already on depletion like oil, even if this information is hardly heard)
added on the 2009-12-14 19:26:28 by krabob krabob
And I think it is an odd think to say since the whole alarm is blown....on a consensus there supposedly exists in the scientific community.
added on the 2009-12-14 19:29:36 by NoahR NoahR
Quote:
We don't need to measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to see how much CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere


yes you do. you need to know how much is there at one point in time, add up how much we have contributed over a specified period, measure the change and then related the two variables. If you do not know how much, as a proportion we contribute, how can you say that we are the major cause of global warming? without those measurements AGW is mere faith based speculation. It's a religion. It's like being told: "there's some bearded guy up in the clouds watching you, you can see him but he's there, and if you don't hand over all your money to the Church of England he's going to rain death, famine and hell-fire upon the Earth! Praise the Lord!!!"

I'm not into religions.
added on the 2009-12-14 19:32:10 by button button
*can = can't
added on the 2009-12-14 19:33:09 by button button
BB Image
(not the solution - huge part of the problem)
added on the 2009-12-14 19:45:58 by NoahR NoahR

login

Go to top