pouët.net

krabob: no, martin was the "text generated" post. My comment on optimum population was a response to something psonice said. but really, there is not much difference between the two. martin is a text generation algorithm and psonice is a regurgitator of a divisive campaign of human self-hatred.

reduce your hallucinogenic drug intake Crapbob, it's fucking up your already small mind.

btw, what's a "morron"?

it's the drugs, they make him see double stupid. double letters, double the human population, double the co2, double the fear and reasons to be afraid.

Eventually, this thread revealed the true opposition : Ultra left altermondialism utopy of a better world against casual right conservative blindness about this world going right as it is.
But, without any ideology, you have to admit global warming is a factual truth.
Human CO2 emission factually has an impact on it which the precise measurability (and only that) can be discussed. This is also more than probably not the only cause.

The real climate-gate is how a country/mafia pays crackers to steal data and release strange data as an easy proof of a conspiracy, discredit thousands of scientists and bring the doubt on democracy leaders and instances (already ridiculous with the swine Flu gate)... Who takes benefit on keeping the background noise loud ?

and so is "global cooling"

Both ways - the mighty mighty sun is the main driver.
That by no means does give mankind "card blanche" to violently pollute the earth - and thereby ourselfs - like it happens right now.
But CO2 is not the gas to solely focus on. It's all the other toxic stuff that gets out
unfiltered and not a single word is spoken on these "congresses".

That's what I'm worried about.

The sun goes through a variety of activity cycles (most famous the aprox. 11 year sun-spot-cycle).
Grows the activity - so grows the global avg. temperature.
Same procedure the other way around.
The biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect is the aerosol "water vapor" - clouds that is - which in turn are affected also by the sun's activity.

In addition, there is no "global climate".
There are a number of regional climate-zones that interact with each other at their thresholds ( storms, floods, droughts, blizzards you name it).

To say "Man made CO2 emmission is the sole reason for climate change" - and that is the current tenor - is way too simple and an outright false statement.
There has _always_ been climate changes.

From my point of view the following statement would be worth considering by this "talkin' heads" up there in Denmark right now:

"The reckless pollution of the soil, the air and the sea of our planet with toxic chemicals and waste, as well as the overfishing and the tempering with the genetic structure of life itself is about to dramatically unballance our planet's biological cycle.
Either we stop raping this planet for profit or all will face the consequences of a planet 'taking care of the problem' "



Doh, don't know where you got that from.
The last thing I've heared was, that the data ( this FOI2009 archive) wasn't even "haXX0rd".
I've got the archive at home. It is way too correctly sorted to be the result of "some nasty hack".
Word was, that an insider of the CRU leaked the archive because the "Freedom Of Information" suit against the CRU was about to be rejected.
So perhaps this archive was assembled by Prof. Phil Jones himself enlight of this suit.
The data is genuine and it has been admitted by the CRU that the correspondence as well as the documents are real.

I know why ! Because h4ck3rs are so 31337 hte are better than all scientists unable to protected their stuffs.

... plus, they added the suffix "gate" ... it makes them loose control at once.... eeblissgate ... rtypegate ... morongate !!!


moronesque, vraiment !!!
This is completely insane wTF 97% of the climatologists say no, it is warming. *climatologists * fucking moron. Are you a climatologist ? No you're a moron, a moron blog reader

and the fact that they doubt of it *is normal*, that is part of the science job: veryfing. But you're too completely stupid to get it and i loose my time by explaining it to you .( But i'm so happy to shit on your face i'll continue. You don't find clown like this everyday)

who?

Krabob:

I told you in the other thread.
If you can't argue like an adult - LEAVE IT!
As long as you're addressing me in foul language I have no need to argue with you any more because in that way YOU exposed yourself as being an ignorant moron all along.

Not a secret, this one will open your eyes: lets make money

Dont know if there is an english version or subs available, but this movie is imho a must watch... After seeing it, you will know how the financial system works today, who benefits and who is steering it and of course how it oppresses people and destroys mother nature.

I needed some beers after watching it...

yes, yes, markov chain rules!!!!

Krabob, d0DgE is true in a way.

Global cooling is here and fortunately it tends to limit a little bit the warming effect. We should theoretically be entering an icy era due to 11000 years cycle of Earth rotation axis.

There is also the Global dimming which is cooling the overall warmth by stopping almost 10% of solar energy.

BUT do you figure what it means ?
WARMING > DIMMING + COOLING !

That means the warming gets over all the highest predicted thresholds, as calculations generally didn't include opposing forces and were based on theoretical projections.
We are over the thresholds !

And as Krabob said, oceans are truely getting acid, making die coral belts. And the worst to come : If ocean temperature gets 2°C higher, methan hydrates could boil and release from oceans depth enormous quantities of methan in the athmosphere, creating the same conditions as were during the Permian mass extinction (biggest life extinction on Earth's hystory)
As also the Ice callots are melting, this may stop the sub oceanic roller, which oxygenates the oceans...

Seriously, get a clue.

MIT debate This was quite good. I also think it represented the split between scientists quite well. They all agreed however, that what had been going on at CRU was bad science and needed some kind of follow up.

They seemed to think that this was a good thing as it could potentially open the debate more and if nothing else, this has caused a renewed interest and will to participate in doing science from the public.

The more pro orientated members pointed out that this in no way changes the sum of science. For now I will keep some reservation about that statement as the case is -as of now- still unfolding. All agreed that climate change is taking place and that the only thing there is up for debate, or hopefully will be now, is to what extend we play part of it.

Personally I do not believe we can just dumb chemicals and plastics in the ocean by the boatload, and soil everything above water with particles of all sorts and it not having a clear effect on the environment. As for the whole Co2 side of it. I am not convinced yet. Even even more so after seeing this.

I feel quite sure the heated discussion within this thread has contributed significantly towards global warming. If it continues any further we may all die!

that MIT debate shows what a joke climate science is. half of them are crooked conmen and the other half are idiotis. i always thought a technocratic dictatorship would be a lot better organized than that. they didnt even have a plinth.

oh but our governments and the UN will make the most of their rambling. you can be sure of that.

Exactly, eebliss, that's my POV too.
To sum it up, a TAX on CO2 and a financial emmission certificate on a gas that is produced no matter what, is
not gonna solve any problem regarding the pollution of the earth.

lol @ thom :)

rtype. Crooked con men and idiots? that was not quite the impression I got from it. But as you say, the ever mentioned consensus was not very obvious. 2 in the panel was sceptical and it seemed like the audience had it's share of sceptics as well.

I don't think the emerging technocracy is the scientists decisions. These guys are all complaining how the press and politicians just pick up the ball and run off with it. Those types usually thrive better as far as way from decision makers as possible as it seems that they tend to think politicians pollute their work. But they are also in the situation where those who have the grant money box are......yes! that sounds like quite a catch22 to find yourself in.

well that certainly settles is doesn't it. Let us look at his methods: "Most of the info for this image is sourced from Realclimate.org. It’s an amazing blog staffed tirelessly by some of the world’s leading climatologists."

The members of RealClimate are:
Gavin Schmidt
Michael E. Mann
...

2 of the very people affected directly by climategate, one under suspicion for fiddling data. Are they the only members. no? But by reading on realclimate it is fairly certain to assume that there is an absolute agreement among the members.

Care to either tell me what you mean or apologise there?

krabob: I have no trouble understanding the virtues of free things, I "consume" them on daily basis. "Best things in life are free", but mostly after your basic needs are fulfilled, in other words, a certain level in standard of living has been reached. Most essential items are not free at all. They require work and effort, both individual and societal effort. Your sunday hippies only exist in societies, where wealth has already exceeded the amount needed to fulfill peoples basic needs. They suck on the "extra" commonwealth. They don't exist in hunter-gatherer societies nor in heavily central-planned socialist states like North Korea.

I'm not trying to claim that other models of economy and social structure cant't fulfill the basic needs (atleast anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist (main buzzwords for de-growth) Cuba can't with it's myriad of small scale (heavily organic) agriculture, as it imports 80% of it's food), but let's be honest here: our lives, our culture, the "western way of living" is based on standard of living that the de-growth model your are offering couldn't sustain. If Cuba can't do it, then Finland most certainly can't, especially if we add more restraints on the Cuban system based on ecological factors. Not with this population size and the standard of living. And achieved benefits are hard to give up.

In Finland, 40% of the public services and jobs would come to an end without the business in private sector. Meaning: capitalism guarantees almost half of the public services. De-growth would naturally have impact on the education system, (high) culture, healthcare system, communication networks, roads and public transportation etc etc. Last night it was over 20 degrees below zero where I live in. Now let's imagine what would happen if the energy company would go out due to irregularities in their finance (neglected repairs etc.)

"At the individual level, degrowth is achieved by voluntary simplicity." (Wikipedia) - feel free to give up your "unnecessary" technology and things that are achieved through the use of oil (like food.)

rambling, I know... I just can't help noticing, that most of these "alternative" cloud castles start from a point, where a certain infrastructure and wealth is already achieved through different means. rarely these alternatives show how it can achieve the status it starts from or how it can realisticly sustain it. mostly they're just adding things to another system.

hempest: Amen to that!