|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 9:20 am: |
WOW! Talk about pissing on a sacred cow here. At least Trainer has the conviction to post some links so that those of us that don't walk lock step with the eco crowd can LEARN something NEW. Seems like some here just enjoy trying to stomp down those that disagree. Thankfully not everyone in the eco movement has the hammer approach. With that approch your side will isolate more than it will assimilate. (Sorry, Lord H. purely unintentional spaceship reference there!)
Trainer, Thanks!! I may not fully agree but I like YOUR approach.
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 9:19 am: |
"You want to start using government power (Prison, Guns, Taxes) to change people's behavior."
Don't kid yourself that this is something only used by the left. (Chevalier's statement a few posts down comes to mind). Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinnochet etc. did not shy away from heavy use of government power as a means of controlling the population.
Your own government do just this, although they use the big stick of prison more freely. Homosexuality, Cannabis use, Oral Sex, etc. all punishable by strong sentences in certain parts of the USA. You also use the biggest stick of all, the threat of death by execution to change peoples behaviour. So your government doesn't tax petrol as much as Europeans do, well I'd rather pay a bit more petrol tax than risk getting a sentence for smoking a joint or receiving a blow-job.
(Or perhaps you would like a society where people are allowed to do as they please without any government control over their behaviour? Rape, murder, child-molestation, theft etc. No legal threat of sanctions.)
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 9:04 am: |
"OK, I can see your argument. Then the solution is to make consumers not want big gas-guzzling trucks. How do we do that? Well we use a big stick. "
You gotta be carefull with that stick. It's what got the Soviets in trouble. The thing is that you will need bigger and bigger sticks maintain control. You want to start using government power (Prison, Guns, Taxes) to change people's behavior.
That's allways what it comes down to with the left. Force people to do what they don't want to do, and if it doesn't work, force them a little more, stiffer peanalties, higher taxes, death squads, whatever it takes.
Lovely world you have in mind. I'd rather live in a little smog.
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 9:00 am: |
If you think that global warming is just the latest cause du jour from a bunch of sandal-wearing eco-freaks then you need to beam down from your spaceship. Virtually every government on the planet agrees that it is happening and that carbon emissions are a major factor(as already said on this thread even oil-man President Bush acknowledges the problem).
If you removed your head from your rectal passage for a little while then perhaps this would enable you to become more in touch with reality.
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 8:55 am: |
I understand the passion, but I'm not making a lot of sense from what you are saying. So global warming is a precursor to an ice age?
Ok, let's for a moment accept everything you've said as fact.
The global weather patterns are nothing more than an enourmous feedback loop with infinite inputs contributing to the overall climate. How do you expect that altering one of those infinite inputs is going to affect the entire system. The answer is that there is no possible way to determine the result. So if we take as fact that Global Warming was started by an over abundance of greenhouse gasses, a reduction in our output of those gasses wouldn't necessarily affect the climate in any predictable way.
We've all heard the story of the wind from the beating wings of a butterfly causing hurricanes in Florida. Are you trying to tell me that our science is not accurate enough to predict the weather tomorrow, but we are able to determine the cause, and then control the weather patterns for the next millennia?
I think of it as a huge slot machine. You insert your quarter with George Washington's head up or down. How is that going to affect the result? What if you tilt the machine a little to the left and fart in it's general direction. You may very well have an effect on the results, but since you didn't know what they were going to be in the first place, you have no way of knowing what was affected or even how much you affected it.
The cataclysmic events you fear may indeed happen, but the fact is that even if we started the ball rolling with greenhouse gasses, we will very likely not be able to stop those events by simply reducing or even eliminating our CO2 emissions. As the earth thaws, vegetable matter frozen in the permafrost at the poles will begin to decay, this will release methane and cause a nutrient rich runoff into rivers and streams. This will cause algae blooms and more greenhouse gasses. Yada Yada Yada.
Warmer or cooler, I believe the earth will take the changes in stride as it always has. One thing for sure. While we may have an effect on the climate, that effect is entirely unpredictable and very much like attempting to put the genie back into the bottle.
I much prefer to put the fairy into the bottle.
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 8:54 am: |
"Not at all. I am saying that global warming and auto emissions are the fault of the car buying public, and not the car companies who are simply meeting a demand."
OK, I can see your argument. Then the solution is to make consumers not want big gas-guzzling trucks. How do we do that? Well we use a big stick. If it hits people in their wallets then they'll change from the big car they don't need anyway and switch to a more fuel-efficient car. The car industry then just switch to making attractive fuel-efficient cars with all the trimmings. Fuel-emissions go down and less harm is done to the atmosphere.
For a nation who are expected to keep to ridiculously low speed limits why the need for cars with huge engines when you don't get the chance to use the engines potential (other than to spurt out fumes). My little 1.1 Lt car can easily do 95MpH on motorways.
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 5:46 am: |
Interesting how you insult me personally (without knowing me) but you don't challenge my facts. Typical tactic used by some liberals when they are driven into a corner.
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 12:00 am: |
you're a creep living in Orlando, Florida.
Your opinion means nothing. You're dead but you don't know it.
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 11:07 pm: |
The species "cavus simia," however, will never be an endangered species. It is so prolific, it can range far from its protected environs, running amok into all kinds of territories.
All hail the cavity monkey.
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 9:58 pm: |
I know it's somewhere on PBS' website (www.pbs.org), or at least it used to be. If I find it before you, I'll post the direct link.
I have found these two:
but neither is the thing I was looking for. Each is interesting, however!
Also, Nova and Frontline did a joint thing on global warming. I haven't read it yet, but the link is:
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 9:47 pm: |
Traineraz, is there any reading material on this theory. It's quite interesting.
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 9:34 pm: |
Yup, all those plants and animals are worthless.
Oh, they're working on a treatment for Parkinson's disease based on Gila monster venom. Guess it's a good thing those ugly critters are a protected species, huh? Hope we haven't exterminated a cure for cancer yet.
Who needs those silly forests? We can make our own oxygen.
WATERSHEDS? Who the heck heard of protecting a WATERSHED or a WETLAND?? All they do is purify water before it becomes groundwater (you know, the kind we drink) and breed mosquitoes.
By the way, the "coming ice age" was -- and is -- a GLOBAL WARMING theory which was -- and is -- not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. Under this theory:
Accepted fact: Saline water is heavier than fresh water. Evaporation, increasing the salinity of water, is responsible for maintaining Atlantic ocean currents which flow from the tropics to the poles. The more saline water sinks at the poles. These currents bring warmer water and warmer temperatures much farther north than would normally occur.
Theory: Warmer temperatures, like those occurring shortly before the Little Ice Age (the one which killed all them there Vikings), increase ice melt at the poles. This reduces salinity, shutting down those nifty currents which keep areas like Greenland and England and such more temperate.
Once the current shuts down, it gets REALLY COLD. The increased snow in the northern regions reflects solar radiation, further reducing the global temperature.
In other words, this theory suggests that global warming could CAUSE an ice age.
Again, this is not a fully-accepted theory, although NOVA did a special on it on PBS, so it seems some reputable scientists believe it is not unreasonable.
Doubtless, you know more than those silly people at NOVA. I know I do, don't we all?
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 4:54 pm: |
"GLOBAL WARMING" The two words, when put together, that make me wanna vomit.
Think back to the late 70's up through the 80's. The big enviro buggaboo was the "coming ice age" and we're all gonna be pop cicles. Everyone, including the late Carl Sagan, was on that band wagon. Hell, it was so big that even Leonard Nemoy gave it play on "In Search Of"
OK, fast forward to the middish 90's and we get .... (ominous JAWS music here) ...... GLOBAL WARMING!! Everyone, including ol' Carl Sagan, has jumped to this band wagon. Hell, they did a jump in mid run that John Wayne would have only dreamed of doing in one of his movies.
NOW, you mean to tell me that all these preeminant eggberts and rocket scientists were initially WRONG about the freeze thing and NOW they are RIGHT about the broiler-set-on-high thing??!! This HUGE reversal in only a DECADE!! Which is it now, kiddies?? Hot or cold??
I'm NOT opposed to environmental conservation and preservation BUT these "experts" need to get their shit straight. If they don't, people are really gonna loose interest and fast. "Chickhen Little", anyone?
My favorite case in point: Back, oh, I don't recall exactly, but somewere in the early 90's the enviro bunny huggers were crying about some spotted, ruby throated, triple horned, double jointed hoot owl in Washington state. They claimed that this owl can only live in virgin forests, if it smells a human it will go sterile and "GASP" if it sees a human, it will have a stroke combined with explosive diarreah and projectile vomiting (well, the first one is correct anyway). SO, a bunch of loggers, logging mills, etc. go out of business (maybe the Birkenstock crowd's ultimate goal...?) after laws are passed to protect this poor, timid woodland creature. Then the truth comes out in the form of ONE picture. The preverbial "thousand words" here. The picture was of this owl. This poor, shy, scared of it's own shadow, owl. Living in a broken K-Mart sign in Seattle!!!
So when I hear the enviro crowd crowing about their latest cause du jour I have to look at them with a jaundiced eye.
Don't even get me started about the Snail Darter or freon....!
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 3:51 pm: |
"You also probably believe that the Earth's resources are unlimited. You need to get out a bit more."
Oh just one more.
Yes the earth's resources are indeed limited, however human imagination and creativity are not. If we run out of petroleum it won't be the end of the world. It will simply be another challenge for humanity to overcome. I have no doubt that we would overcome that challenge without breaking a sweat. Necessity being the mother of invention and all that.
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 3:48 pm: |
"You think global warming is just propaganda dreamed up by people who just want to spitefully 'get at' the car industry."
Not at all. I am saying that global warming and auto emissions are the fault of the car buying public, and not the car companies who are simply meeting a demand. It's not right to demonize an industry who makes a legal product that people want. You want better gas mileage from your car, then buy one. The car companies make several to choose from. Me, I like big gas guzzling trucks. If you want to get mad about global warming, get mad at me for driving what I drive.
I may have to take a break from posting for the next few days. Weekend to spend with the family and all.
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 12:23 pm: |
Well, even the oil-lovin' Bush administration fessed up to global warming. I don't think there's anyone left who denies that pollution causes global warming. Maybe Rush Limbaugh.
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 12:16 pm: |
"We use global warming as an excuse to attack the car companies. These add campaigns are nothing more than propaganda, and though once it targeted Jews, now it targets those with resources to be plundered."
Those poor car companies, how our hearts bleed for them. I mean all they want to do is create a better world for us all. Afterall fossil fuel emissions cause no damage whatsoever to the environment, the gases emitted actual protect us from the sun's harmful rays. Those nice guys at Exxon and Esso have mankind's best interests at heart. As to who is plundering what resources, well sure doesn't the whole world exist solely to provide resources for the oil and car industries.
You think global warming is just propaganda dreamed up by people who just want to spitefully 'get at' the car industry. You also probably believe that the Earth's resources are unlimited. You need to get out a bit more.
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 10:02 am: |
Your point is well taken. It's hard to discuss the best form of government when all forms are so easily corruptible and so frequently run by the worst thugs of their respective societies.
When it comes to government I'm more of a minimalist than anything else. I feel the less power government has, the less there is available for it to abuse. Conservatism falls closer this ideology than liberalism, so I tend to throw my support in that direction. I am however no fan of George Bush's governmental power grabs in the name of fighting terrorism any more than I was a fan of Bill Clinton.
My Mother is German, so I know from family stories and history what can happen to a people who simply allow sweet talking thugs to run their government. It's an insidious process that starts when a megalomaniac leader convinces the majority that they are superior to a minority, and that minority is a worthless piece of shit who's only motive is the destruction of all that is good in that society. We've seen it again and again, Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Yugoslavia..
We see it happen here with attacks against tobacco, Microsoft. We use global warming as an excuse to attack the car companies. These add campaigns are nothing more than propaganda, and though once it targeted Jews, now it targets those with resources to be plundered.
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 9:29 am: |
Mogan David, I respect what you have to say; but since I live in a country that was under a military dictatorship for 17 years, I have a different perspective. As Lord Hobgoblin well knows, I'm a tough critic of Chilean socialism. Nonetheless, I can take your statements about socialism and apply them directly (and accurately!) to the right-wing dictatorship that ousted Allende. It's just a matter of changing some words:
"The reason why I in particular find ["Autocratic Conservatism"] so repugnant is that it turns democracy into [an elite] where the [minority] steal from the [majority]."
"It never fails to amaze me to see the hatred displayed from the [Right] toward [wretched poverty]. Though of course it's all part of the formula. You must first [immoralize] and [criminalize] the [destitute] and [hopeless] before you can with good concience [imprison or execute] them. (Or shall we call it a [re-]re-distribution of wealth.)"
This is how it works in Chile and many other countries.
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 8:08 am: |
Both the Right and the Left react when they feel threatened. Sometimes the Right reacts more strongly, sometimes vice-versa. It usually depends on who has the guns, the muscle and the money.
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 7:41 am: |
You just can't accept that many people in the world want socialism and choose socialism. It's their choice, it's none of your business what they choose.
Trying to force people not to have what they have chosen because you don't like it makes you no better than a dictator. Democracy so long as people don't choose socialism is simply not democracy. If a nation chooses to to organise itself in such a way that the resources are more equally spread via taxation etc. then that's up to that nation.
"So yeah, socialism is fine until someone points the gun at you. As long as you get your share of the booty, who cares right?"
What a load of nonsense, then why does the British public not wish to ditch their National Health and Education services? Why are they willing to pay more taxes specifically for this purpose? Perhaps it is beacuse the majority of people benefit from this system. So everybody gets their share and everybody is happy.
You pay taxes. The majority of your countrymen are in agreement with this, or else your politicians would be out of office. Are you saying that taxation should be completely abolished, there should be no public infrastructure, no national defence etc.? Where is the line to be drawn? And wherever you draw the line there will be someone who will not be happy that he is paying taxes.
In the end it is the MAJORITY that should decide and if the majority decide they want to spend more on public services etc. then taxation is set accordingly and so be it.
You attitude that the Left hates prosperity is knee-jerk, tunnel-vision, nonsense. Read some Marx, Marxism is extremely materialistic. Like Western Capitalist philosophy it sees continuing material growth as vital (although both are flawed here since we do not have an infite world of resources to take from). The Left do not hate wealth and prosperity, they just view it collectively rather than individually. I know you despise the Left and it is your right to do so but spouting tabloid nonsense such as that does you a disservice.
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 5:27 am: |
"The social services of most European countries have a socialist ethos, they exist because the people of these countries want them to exist, even Margaret Thatcher would not dare dismantle this when she was in government as it would lead to electoral defeat."
And slavery was wildly popular with the voters of the south at one time. Just because an idea is popular with the majority doesn't make it right or noble.
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 5:16 am: |
"Check this out. Target stores were unwittingly (so they claim) selling White Power clothing until they caught flak from anti-racist activists."
Funny how no one seemed to care about hats with a big X in the middle.
"88" give me a break.
|Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 5:13 am: |
"It puzzles me why so many people from the USA seem to take such great offence to countries democratically choosing socialism."
The reason why I in particular find "Democratic Socialism" so repugnant is that it turns democracy into a mob where the majority steal from the minority.
It never fails to amaze me to see the hatred displayed from the left toward wealth and prosperity. Though of course it's all part of the formula. You must first vilinize and scandalize the wealthy and prosperous before you can with good concience steal from them. (Or shal we call it a re-distribution of wealth.)
So yeah, socialism is fine until someone points the gun at you. As long as you get your share of the booty, who cares right? (damn I miss pikkle, he would have jumped on right that booty thing)
|Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2002 - 9:59 pm: |
Check this out. Target stores were unwittingly (so they claim) selling White Power clothing until they caught flak from anti-racist activists.