It's easy to debunk a conspiracy theory once you identify it as such, because that demands shady groups in secret chambers, unified to a single task. That's always gotta sound silly.
The idea of global governance however is something a lot of thinkers, and people of power have been warm to for a long time. Just type Global Governance Quotes into your search engine. It's not a conspiracy theory to say respected thinkers think this stuff, because it's easy to show they do. That much is fact. They might even be right to think it. Maybe it is worth considering.
Similarly the idea of using global warming or environmental pressures to move towards global governance is an idea many have suggested. The Club of Rome (they've advised the UN), Gore, Sarkozy, most recently the new EU President, all these guys think global warming can be used to move towards global governance. That also is documented fact.
Now does that mean they're all taking marching orders from a secret society somewhere? No. It only means they've each seen a direction they'd like to go, and a way to possibly get there. No organized plot is necessary.
Gunnair
CKA Uber
Posts: 12312
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:13 pm
N_Fiddledog wrote:
It's easy to debunk a conspiracy theory once you identify it as such, because that demands shady groups in secret chambers, unified to a single task. That's always gotta sound silly.
The idea of global governance however is something a lot of thinkers, and people of power have been warm to for a long time. Just type Global Governance Quotes into your search engine. It's not a conspiracy theory to say respected thinkers think this stuff, because it's easy to show they do. That much is fact. They might even be right to think it. Maybe it is worth considering.
Similarly the idea of using global warming or environmental pressures to move towards global governance is an idea many have suggested. The Club of Rome (they've advised the UN), Gore, Sarkozy, most recently the new EU President, all these guys think global warming can be used to move towards global governance. That also is documented fact.
Now does that mean they're all taking marching orders from a secret society somewhere? No. It only means they've each seen a direction they'd like to go, and a way to possibly get there. No organized plot is necessary.
Al Gore is actually Cobra Commander...
ridenrain
CKA Uber
Posts: 22826
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:23 pm
More like Maurice Strong.
Zipperfish
CKA Uber
Posts: 12246
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:16 pm
ridenrain wrote:
More like Maurice Strong.
Merry Christmas to you too, RR!!!
N_Fiddledog
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2819
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:07 pm
Seen this one, Zip? The ideal gift from lefties to righties
Caelon
Active Member
Posts: 404
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:59 pm
Canadaka wrote:
The doc I watched claimed that man-made CO2 only acounted for a small percentage of CO2 produced, like 6% or something. And that CO2 is only a small percentage of the greenhouse gases. So man-caused CO2 was only like 1% of the total.
Well i don't know if thats all true, but even if it were, is it not possible that the global temperature could be affected greatly only by that 1%.
The other thing i have to think about is if the earth is not being warmed by man-made activities or not warming at all, why are still the majority of scientists, climatologists, politicians, beurocrats, government organizations, private corporations, the UN and so on all saying that it is. I refuse to beleive there is some global consipiracy for global goverment or some crap. Why would different envirmomant and climate agencies from countries all around the world be in on this. Why would presidents and prime ministers including our own buy into it, if it weren't true. I can't see these national agencies and groups working in a global consipracy.
See this is the kinda stuff that is hard "The evidence which has been produced apparently showing a correlation between cloud cover and cosmic rays relies on judicious choice and dubious manipulation of cloud datasets." each side can manipulate date to their agenda, how do we know what is true?
You have hit on the thorny issue of the fallability of scientists. They are people like anyone else and some have private agendas. There is also the tendendency to chase research funds and so research can be coloured to appease the funder. Not everyone does it, but it happens enough that it becomes a danger to good science. Nay sayers to a popular stance are vilified and attacked. I am generalizing here and not being specific to global warming.
What I would like to see are some answers to the following: 1. According to some climatologists rise in CO2 levels in the past follow global warming, but do not preceed it. 2. If #1 is true why is it different this time? 3. We have been coming out of the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1750 AD) and so there should be a general warming. How much different is the current trend from previous warm periods after an ice age? 4. According to some climatologists the midevil warm period (900 to 1200 AD or so) was a 4*F warmer than the current temperatures. That seems to be about what the doom and gloom people are saying we will warm up to this time. The world did not end in 1200 AD so what was the global climate, ice caps and shoreline like in 1200 AD? Was it vastly different than today? Are the conditions that existed then what we should expect in the next 50 years? 5. In 1000 AD the Vikings were farming in Greenland raising livestock and hay crops. You cannot do that today. What was the rest of the world like t that time? 6. The earth's climate has been continuously changing since the earth was formed. It will continue to change as long as the world exists. There will be warm periods and cold periods. There will be continental drifting and changing land mass patterns. Why should we think that the conditions of 1970 should be the conditions until the end of time? As a species we have adapted to changing climates, etc for the last 750,000 years. Can't we adapt to the future changes?
Just points to ponder.
N_Fiddledog
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2819
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:15 pm
Caelon you should be able to find the responses to those arguments and others
You can find more like that by typing "How to argue with a global warming skeptic" into a search engine.
The implication is always the skeptic argument is now destroyed, and those beaten fools are now slinking off into the shadows.
Except they're not, are they? Skeptics are still all over the place. Those arguments have been around for some time. They only work on people who haven't seen them before.
There are of course rebuttals to almost all of those arguments. Some of them don't actually matter, it's only implied they're important.
Here's a good one where you can see both sides of the debate as it updates.
1. According to some climatologists rise in CO2 levels in the past follow global warming, but do not preceed it.
Then, if the planet is cooling, like the skeptics say, why is the CO2 concentration not decreasing? Riddle me that, Einstein!
PluggyRug
CKA Super Elite
Posts: 5877
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:27 pm
The lag time is a decade or two.
Regards Einstein
N_Fiddledog
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2819
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 1:22 pm
And here's one back at ya zip. If CO2 is rising for the past decade or so, why have global temperatures not been?
But here's one I've been wondering about in regard to the particular thing you reference. That being the fact the Vostok ice data shows temperature rise precedes CO2. You have a temperature rise, then 800 years later or so you have CO2 rise. So is CO2 rise at the present time unexpected when about 800 years ago, or so we were still experiencing temperature rise from the Medieval Warm Period? I don't know.
I do know this. Your argument is not the one, one usually sees to the statement...
Quote:
1. According to some climatologists rise in CO2 levels in the past follow global warming, but do not preceed it.
Usually the response is "Yes, global temperature rises can be initiated by things like earth orbit, or tilt, followed about 800 years later by CO2 rise, but once CO2 starts rising that's when it's might is truly felt, because the temperature continues to rise".
Even if the world isn't warming and even if CO2 emissions are not harming the environment, isn't it still a good idea to: a) reduce our use of fossil fuels and invest in alternative, clean, modern, renewable energies; b) monitor/limit corporations' use of the environment for disposal and discharge?
I think the bigger picture is lost on all of you climate change deniers. I have to be responsible for where my garbage goes. But businesses somehow seem to get a "Use-the-Environment-for-Free" card.
N_Fiddledog
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2819
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:01 pm
Lemmy wrote:
Even if the world isn't warming and even if CO2 emissions are not harming the environment, isn't it still a good idea to: a) reduce our use of fossil fuels and invest in alternative, clean, modern, renewable energies; b) monitor/limit corporations' use of the environment for disposal and discharge?
Most, if not almost all skeptics think fiscally responsible moves to discover, and develop viable, alternate energies are a good idea. How much economic harm, and environmental cane toading you're willing to do get there is the question, and it's a complex issue. It's not black and white.
Quote:
I think the bigger picture is lost on all of climate change deniers. I have to be responsible for where my garbage goes. But businesses somehow seem to get a "Use-the-Environment-for-Free" card.
That's a metaphor. What's it for? CO2 is not garbage. It's not an empty soup can, or a half-used container of toxic chemicals. It's natural, has been at much higher levels in the past, and makes plants grow. There are good scientific hypotheses out there showing how there may be natural balancing systems built into the real world to level out its effects.
Lemmy
CKA Super Elite
Posts: 6422
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:32 pm
N_Fiddledog wrote:
Most, if not almost all skeptics think fiscally responsible moves to discover, and develop viable, alternate energies are a good idea. How much economic harm, and environmental cane toading you're willing to do get there is the question, and it's a complex issue. It's not black and white.
Agreed. But by the same token, how much "corporate cane toading" are you willing to do as well?
N_Fiddledog wrote:
That's a metaphor. What's it for? CO2 is not garbage. It's not an empty soup can, or a half-used container of toxic chemicals. It's natural, has been at much higher levels in the past, and makes plants grow. There are good scientific hypotheses out there showing how there may be natural balancing systems built into the real world to level out its effects.
CO2 certainly is garbage. It's a by-product of economic activity that is dispensed with by releasing it into the environment. Whether it's harmful or not is a matter of debate, but it certainly is garbage. If it weren't, companies would be keeping it instead of emitting it into the environment.
PluggyRug
CKA Super Elite
Posts: 5877
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:43 pm
Lemmy wrote:
CO2 certainly is garbage. It's a by-product of economic activity that is dispensed with by releasing it into the environment. Whether it's harmful or not is a matter of debate, but it certainly is garbage. If it weren't, companies would be keeping it instead of emitting it into the environment.
Please tell me you are joking. So no industrial activity, no CO2?
CO2 is not harmful, so no debate is needed. No CO2 no life on Earth.
N_Fiddledog
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2819
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:31 pm
Lemmy wrote:
Agreed. But by the same token, how much "corporate cane toading" are you willing to do as well?
I think I should explain that term. I may have invented it as a verb. I think I've heard it used that way before though. Basically this is the story of cane toads...
Quote:
Cane toads were imported by the Australian Bureau of Sugar Experimental Stations to eat cane beetles. Unfortunately, they will not eat the adult beetles and the larvae live underground, so the experiment was a failure. Since they have no natural enemies in Australia, the frogs have become more of a pest than the beetles.
Cane toading. Basically, I mean you cause bigger problems than what you're trying to solve. This is a particular highlight of lunacy when the problem you're thinking you'll solve may not be a problem at all.
So how does that connect with the CO2 question? Take orangutans for instance. With the Kyoto accord it was decided offer offsets to the alleged problem of CO2 with the production of biofuel. One of the best ways to get biofuel is from Palm Oil. In Indonesia, where the Orangutans live, they took the devastation of the rain forest up to a whole new level by knocking down forest to replace it with palm plantations. Lot's of burning of old forest. Lots of CO2, and actual pollution was released. More importantly though they devastated the natural habitat of the Orangutans.
Then there's the nutty stuff they're considering like seeding the atmosphere with sulphur. Whataya think might happen there?
And this new CO2 thing is far from being the first case of solutions to non-problems from the environmental lobby causing gigantic real problems, even tragedy. You're no doubt familiar with the DDT scare killing millions of African children, that little Californian gutter fish being used to create drought, and the alar scare.
CKA Uber 
CKA Super Elite 
