Is it ok to exploit our environment for economic gain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Wow, this clearly shows how ridiculous you are. For starters you must be mad to attempt to compare Eugenics, which is a belief, a concept, something which cannot be measured, to a physical change which is taking place, which can be recorded and can actually be measured to study the change in it by comparing data. Not to mention the fact you seem to think you (a politics undergraduate) seem to know better than an overwhelming majority of accredited and published scientists who have spent more years than you have living, studying the subject themselves, and not relying on propaganda put out by shills payed off by big oil companies, which I proved the last time this topic came up. Literally couldn't make this stuff up.

---

And the other scientists are funded by the government........ so two can play at such a game. I just prefer to go by what the scientists themselves are saying in private, such as when the University of East Anglia got caught out by leaked emails dicussing how there hadn't been a rise in temperature (like they stated in public) and it was a 'travesty' that they couldn't account for it. Caught out red handed. *waits for response telling me that global warming climate change can now mean a drop in temperatures despite everything we were told from 2000 to 2009*

As for politics, so what? I hate politics. I regard politicians and their fellow travellers (including many scientists who are now political as well as the heads of charities, those in the medical profession and the rest of the ruling elite) as the lowest lifeforms on the planet and I detest them. A great deal of them are megalomaniacs, liars and thieves and their track record of getting things completely wrong (ie eugenics which science suppported in the 1930s along with abortion and AGW today...... along with their wars and their economics, ie the Euro) shows that whilst they may be clever, it certainly doesn't mean they have any common sense. Scepticism is healthy and consensus is unhealthy.

You don't have to be an undergraduate to know that the people running the show are not to be trusted. Indeed that's one of the weaknesses of academia itself: it's often very consensus based (and therefore often wrong) along with carrying a liberal-left agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

And the other scientists are funded by the government........ so two can play at such a game. I just prefer to go by what the scientists themselves are saying in private, such as when the University of East Anglia got caught out by leaked emails dicussing how there hadn't been a rise in temperature (like they stated in public) and it was a 'travesty' that they couldn't account for it. Caught out red handed. *waits for response telling me that global warming climate change can now mean a drop in temperatures despite everything we were told from 2000 to 2009*

As for politics, so what? I hate politics. I regard politicians and their fellow travellers (including many scientists who are now political as well as the heads of charities, those in the medical profession and the rest of the ruling elite) as the lowest lifeforms on the planet and I detest them. A great deal of them are megalomaniacs, liars and thieves and their track record of getting things completely wrong (ie eugenics which science suppported in the 1930s along with abortion and AGW today...... along with their wars and their economics, ie the Euro) shows that whilst they may be clever, it certainly doesn't mean they have any common sense. Scepticism is healthy and consensus is unhealthy.

---

Ah, the GRAND CONSPIRACY THEORY argument. Yes Dan, I'm sure that THOUSANDS of scientists are all colluding together to get some extra funding (which they get anyway so it literally doesn't factor into this scenario) and that it's been kept completely under wraps apart from a couple of emails which were taken out of context and a number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident. I'd love to live in wonderland with you, but up here in the real world, it's pretty obvious that climate change is real, especially with the unanimous agreement (97%) of Climate Scientists, which nasa has on their website http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus. Take the tinfoil hat off Dan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Ah, the GRAND CONSPIRACY THEORY argument. Yes Dan, I'm sure that THOUSANDS of scientists are all colluding together to get some extra funding (which they get anyway so it literally doesn't factor into this scenario) and that it's been kept completely under wraps apart from a couple of emails which were taken out of context and a number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident. I'd love to live in wonderland with you, but up here in the real world, it's pretty obvious that climate change is real, especially with the unanimous agreement (97%) of Climate Scientists, which nasa has on their website http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus. Take the tinfoil hat off Dan.

---

Climate change is real yeah, just I dispute recent changes in the climate taking place due to humanity as do many scientists. We've had past changes in temperature so I think it a bit rash to destroy the western economy on the concept that somehow this recent period of our fault. Increasing numbers are starting to agree with me, and the Australian and Canadian Governments are, I think, on the same page more or less as me. Your response though is typical of somebody who can't stand his consensus being challenged by attempting to make it out as though I am mentally incapable (tinfoil hat) of making a judgement myself. Just as those who questioned the rotation of the Earth were labelled hundreds of years ago when they dared question the consensus at the time.

Time will tell who is correct, in any case we had a cooling scare a few decades ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Climate change is real yeah, just I dispute recent changes in the climate taking place due to humanity as do many scientists. We've had past changes in temperature so I think it a bit rash to destroy the western economy on the concept that somehow this recent period of our fault. Increasing numbers are starting to agree with me, and the Australian and Canadian Governments are, I think, on the same page more or less as me. Your response though is typical of somebody who can't stand his consensus being challenged by attempting to make it out as though I am mentally incapable (tinfoil hat) of making a judgement myself. Just as those who questioned the rotation of the Earth were labelled hundreds of years ago when they dared question the consensus at the time.

Time will tell who is correct, in any case we had a cooling scare a few decades ago.

---

Oh please, let's not act as if you don't do the same "Can I have some of what you're smoking?" seems to ring a bell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Oh please, let's not act as if you don't do the same "Can I have some of what you're smoking?" seems to ring a bell.

---

Hehe I take that back then :P ...the denier slur though (which you haven't used thankfully) is a different kettle of fish when it comes to AGW.

97% of Doctors say "Its Appendicitis, we need to operate on it right now" 3% Say nothing and that person ends up dying.

Same thing goes with our planet and global warming.

From some smart guy in this youtube video. If you don't have 10 minutes of your time to watch this enlightening video Ill sum it up the best I can. http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with...e-7?g=2&c=mtla


Basically here is the graph. 4 blocks. For Rows we have Are we the reason for Climate Change ( Global Warming ) True or False.
For the Columns we have Do we take action, Yes or No.

Most of the debates on this issue has been Are we causing Global Warming, we aren't looking at the right area now are we? We need to look at Are we going to Take Action to STOP Global Warming, Yes or No.

Now if we do take action and it all turns out to be false, then we probably will have the cost of all our efforts, and a Global depression will probably follow. If We do take action and It turns out its true we are causing it, then we still have the cost to deal with, but we are happy because we can continue to live on our planet as normal.

Now if we Do not take action and it turns out to be False, Great, no harm done. Yet if we don't take action and things turn out to be true. We will face Total Economic, Political, Environmental, Health, and Social Collapse.


Thing is we need to stop arguing if its true or false we are affecting the environment, we need to decide if we are going to take action. And with that we need to look at the risks on each side. I know whats written down would be the most extreme cases, but that's the most likely outcome.

We nee to decide, Whats more risky. Spending Money and a Global Depression, or Total Economic, Political, Environmental, Health, and Social Collapse (which includes Global Depression).

Honestly no doubt I would Take action, and I plan to do the most I can in the future.
http://i58.tinypic.com/2qx7p0g.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragga

From some smart guy in this youtube video. If you don't have 10 minutes of your time to watch this enlightening video Ill sum it up the best I can. http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with...e-7?g=2&c=mtla

Basically here is the graph. 4 blocks. For Rows we have Are we the reason for Climate Change ( Global Warming ) True or False.
For the Columns we have Do we take action, Yes or No.

Most of the debates on this issue has been Are we causing Global Warming, we aren't looking at the right area now are we? We need to look at Are we going to Take Action to STOP Global Warming, Yes or No.

Now if we do take action and it all turns out to be false, then we probably will have the cost of all our efforts, and a Global depression will probably follow. If We do take action and It turns out its true we are causing it, then we still have the cost to deal with, but we are happy because we can continue to live on our planet as normal.

Now if we Do not take action and it turns out to be False, Great, no harm done. Yet if we don't take action and things turn out to be true. We will face Total Economic, Political, Environmental, Health, and Social Collapse.

Thing is we need to stop arguing if its true or false we are affecting the environment, we need to decide if we are going to take action. And with that we need to look at the risks on each side. I know whats written down would be the most extreme cases, but that's the most likely outcome.

We nee to decide, Whats more risky. Spending Money and a Global Depression, or Total Economic, Political, Environmental, Health, and Social Collapse (which includes Global Depression).

---

I have seen that rubbish before and it doesn't add up, indeed if you believe the UN's own figures - which I assume you do - then you'd realise that even if we shut down the entire global economy tommorow (a real global depression) it would hardly make a difference to the temperature of the Earth. And that's assuming the UN has it right in it's calculations, something I believe not to be the case. In any case, even if our politicians are stupid enough to shut down the economy of the west..... those in the East aren't that stupid and thus we'd be wasting our time anyway. So even if you believe in all this, what do you propose given the political and economic reality of it all?

And the video you gave, it's like saying with the remote possibility the devil or an asteroid could come to Earth, we should spend the entire GDP of the globe building a ray gun that will zap the devil or the asteroid. That's what you'd call madness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragga

Honestly no doubt I would Take action, and I plan to do the most I can in the future.

---

Take action then, why not start now? Why wait for everybody else?

Start collecting rainwater. Stop buying plastic. Buy second hand clothing. Don't go on holiday. Sit indoors with no heating on and wear a jumper. Buy vegtables instead of meat products. Pledge never to drive a car. Build a septic pond on your land if you have the room. Go through your rubbish and start sorting it into plastics/metals etc. Don't watch TV. Don't use the computer.

But you won't though will you. That's for you, like the politicians, to preach to everybody else to do.

@undertaker yes I do most of these, yet things I can't do atm as im 16, and don't have my own residence, but in two-three years I plan on more efficient ventures when I'm no longer living with my Family.


I'm basically done with this thread, as clearly someone has been fed lies upon lies from Big Oil and Corrupt Scientists (paid by Big Oil).