It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Soon to be Worldwide Water Shortage??

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Well said Majic. And even if they said "worst flood ever" would it really be the worst flood ever? Or just the worst flood in recorded history which in reality only means since like 1880 or so when the NWS was founded. I am unsure of the exact year. In any case the worst flood ever in the US won't go beyond 1700. We are talking 300 years at best. When did the last glaciation end? 10,000 years ago? What is 300 years compared to 10,000? People act alarmed if the sea level threatens to rise a cm or two. During the height of the ice age the ocean level was over 100 feet lower than today. Again what is worse? 100 feet or a cm? Global temperatures have risen some 10 degrees C since the peak of the Younger Dryas. We are supposed to be alarmed by a 1 degree increase.

Personally I would describe the dust bowl era as more alarming than what we call global warming today and we certainly survived that.




posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

by Majic If so many major corporate players didn't stand to make so many trillions of dollars off this stuff, I would be less skeptical, I suppose.


Are you kidding me? "this stuff" is one if the only things that, through pressure of public opinion, could turn corporations away from their sociopathic pursuit of profit. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose from their constant denial and stream of corporate sponsored studies into the problem. If they were made for once in their existence to actually consider their effects on climate, or equally made to incorporate solutions to global problems, even those not of their making into their business agendas, they would lose billions. If it was about water infrastructure and economic use instead of profit, if it was about limits on harmful ecological practices instead of profits, if it was about conservation instead of rape, they would lose Billions.

America, the home of predatory capitalism is unsurprisingly the only country of economic note that denies these things are happing. You comfort yourselves with "scientific" studies paid for by those with the most to lose.

Did you believe the "tobacco isn't harmful" studies sponsored by the cigarette giants?


by Majic At least, that's how it looks from my little corner of the world.


And therein lies the problem, and why I said I thought we'd never get an active consensus. If I can't see it from my window, it's not happening.



[edit on 24-8-2005 by kegs]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Institutionalized Sociopathy


Originally posted by kegs
Are you kidding me? "this stuff" is one if the only things that, through pressure of public opinion, could turn corporations away from their sociopathic pursuit of profit.

The idea that corporations are evil and that socialist government is the cure is a myth. A meme. A tool for control. It's bunk.

Corporations are legal entities organized to represent the interests of their masters. Governments are legal entities organized to represent the interests of their masters.

The distinction is mainly one of details and semantics, and every government I'm aware of is controlled by corporate interests of one form or another, without a single exception.

What you are repeating is what they want you to think. By aligning you with one cause or another, they can control you.

Multinational corporations made billions of dollars off the Ozone Layer Scam.

Now it's time for Global Warming.

Who's behind it? The answer is plain enough: who will be the ones to implement the new “green” technologies?

And the money involved is beyond most people's ability to conceive. Trillions of dollars. Trillions.

The appeal? We're all going to die! Hurry! Run! NOW! Don't stop to think, there's no time!

A Threat Greater Than Global Warming

In a climate like this (pun intended), critical thinking is a threat, and therefore must be discouraged. Hence the Global Warming Jihad, in which skeptics are ostracized and vilified for the crime of thinking independently, as happens like freakin' clockwork in this forum.

I'm undecided about Global Warming, but my primary interest on ATS is mass mind control, and all the symptoms are here. Everything from the emotional hook to the us/them dichotomy to the religious, rapturous, hysterical zeal for the cause.

Because The Cause is unquestionably right, and those who question it are evil!

They're also ignorant, greedy lackeys controlled by evil corporations because they don't agree with us, right?

This is the message I'm seeing over and over again, right here on ATS.

I'm not making this up -- heck, you just gave me this message yourself. Rather, I'm studying it, and I must say, it's quite an education.

By simply not being sure, I am held up as a criminal by True Believers in Global Warming. Classic. Positively classic.

I can't be the only person who sees this. It's amazingly obvious, and the evidence is right here in these forums for anyone to see, if they allow themselves to do so.

People who otherwise at least claim to tolerate independent thinking on other topics draw the line here.

Why?

No Time To Talk, No Time To Think

I know why. I know damn well why, but good luck making the point when people refuse to even consider the possibility they are being played.

Alarmism, also known as mass hysteria, is big business, and it's hardly anything new. It's as old as the hills, as are natural changes in climate.

But there's no time to talk about that, not a minute to lose. Oh no.

Better hurry up and panic before it's too late.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Majic
Just because global warming has the symptoms of mass mind control doesn't mean it is mass mind control.

There is money to be made on fear, no doubt. There's always money to be made on the weakness of others. Money is just our survival equivalent of meat. Society has always verged on anarchy, because you have predators competing for resources. What happens when a tiger and a crocodile want the same tasty kill? War.

Perhaps there is nothing drastic happening, it's too early to be sure.

It's not to early to prepare, however. Fear is not a prerequisite for precaution. People ought to shed their fear anyway, regardless of the source, wouldn't you agree? Being afraid of something is only useful, evolutionarily speaking, if that fear motivates the creature to action.

I agree with most of what you said. With more evidence, I could believe that the global warming evidence was cherry picked to instill fear. I haven't seen that evidence yet however. The evidence I have seen speaks of chaotic times ahead.

Stockpiling resources and securing the supplies of necessities is never a bad bet, because the act loses no benefit if tragedy fails to strike. Stockpiled 700 gallons of water when you thought it was going to be scarce, and it turns out not to be? Does the water become undrinkable the moment global warming is proved to be a hoax? If you build a desalination plant, does the machinery become inherently useless the moment we realize there will be no massive shortage? No and no.

There's nothing wrong with being prepared for everything you possibly can be. Of course, it's also a good idea to accept whatever happens, and do your best to adapt and continue to breed regardless. That should go without saying...


In any case, life is best lived fearless. Existing as such makes one practically indestructable, even in the face of fate's artillery (which is considerable). Your advice, in that respect, is some of the best I've seen given on ATS.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

by Majic

The idea that corporations are evil and that socialist government is the cure is a myth. A meme. A tool for control. It's bunk.


Where did I mention socialism?



By Majic
What you are repeating is what they want you to think. By aligning you with one cause or another, they can control you.


And your 'cause' is above this how? All I'm seeing from corporations is the denial of the problem. As you said corporations increasingly control and influence governments. Through their control of the largest economy on the planet, the US, and a cabinet of ex oil industry millionaires they are advocating nothing but the status quo. Bush only recently admitted there was a problem at all, and I wouldn't hold your breath for him to mention man made factors. Look at his latest energy bill, You can really see the push for change in that can't you?


The corporations self sponsored studies into climate change consistently deny there's a problem, Whilst the independent studies consistently say the opposite. What you are saying is exactly what those with vested interest in the status quo want people to believe, and the status quo is where the money is. The idea that the changes that would be needed over time, an eventual wholesale change in corporate practices, harsher regulations, production methods and the eventual sale of cheaper energy would make them more money is patently ridiculous.


Multinational corporations made billions of dollars off the Ozone Layer Scam.


How exactly? Having to change their whole production methods of refrigerators and contents of aerosols etc. made them billions?? And CFCs are a scam now too? Please….



Who's behind it? The answer is plain enough: who will be the ones to implement the new “green” technologies?


Good question. Nobody, by the looks of it at the moment. I don't exactly see corporations rushing to change their methods, and with the exception of fuel cells which is still in the development stage I don't see much enthusiasm for alternative methods, many of which have existed for decades and were bought up and buried by the self same companies you say are just dying for us to buy their new "green" technology. All I'm seeing at the moment is the ridicule of wind and solar (to name a couple) as viable alternative technologies, and the companies that are developing alternative technologies are overall far removed from multinationals in terms of size and influence.


The global economy is based on oil, you surely know that and while the oil remains and the profit is there and those that control it control government it will continue to be so.

I'm not trying to be alarmist, I'm not saying everything has to change NOW I'm just frustrated at the out of hand dismissal this problem receives through the “la, la, la I can’t hear you” position of the energy industry and their media agenda.


[edit on 25-8-2005 by kegs]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Social Service


Originally posted by kegs
Where did I mention socialism?

Where did you need to? I addressed the point, and the point stands.

Probable Cause


Originally posted by kegs
And your 'cause' is above this how?

My cause is the promotion of skepticism and critical thought.

It is “above” this by not being a part of it. However, I don't ascribe false nobility to it. It's just an intellectual choice, not a mandate from God.

People are free to choose whatever religion they want. I'm just saying that a free thinker doesn't jump on the first bandwagon that comes along.

I'm neither pro or con the Global Warming Theory. I'm skeptical.

The fact that some folks see that as taking sides makes my case more eloquently and convincingly than I ever will.

What The Corporations Say


Originally posted by kegs
All I'm seeing from corporations is the denial of the problem. As you said corporations increasingly control and influence governments. Through their control of the largest economy on the planet, the US, and a cabinet of ex oil industry millionaires they are advocating nothing but the status quo.

That's only one side of the struggle. It's important to remember that “corporations” is a very broad term.

The other side are the corporations that make their money off government programs, including regulated mandates like “green technology”, and that happens to be a very big business.

The point I made above is that there are some major global players lined up on both sides of this issue. Each have their own interests, and will do what they can to protect and advance them. Some will lose market share to Global Warming technologies, others will gain market share by providing them.

And we, their customers, will pay for all this, because we will be required by law to do so.

Corporations compete against one another, as they should. Where I take exception is their using government power to shut out competition and line their pockets, which is far too rampant as it is.

My advice is not to become their shills. Both sides have plenty of those as it is.

Billing The Foot


Originally posted by kegs
All I'm seeing at the moment is the ridicule of wind and solar (to name a couple) as viable alternative technologies, and the companies that are developing alternative technologies are overall far removed from multinationals in terms of size and influence.

I don't see ridicule of these technologies, but skepticism. There are practical problems for all energy technologies, including the burning of oil.

I live out in the boonies, and want wind and solar on my property. However, setting that up is prohibitively expensive. For now, it's cheaper to buy electricity from my local utility.

For now.

What's holding alternative energy back is economics, but the economics are changing.

The push for government legislation on Global Warming is being made by the same people who stand to profit from such legislation.

I consider that something crucial to remember, because “sociopathic” corporations won't pay a dime for any of this.

Their customers will, and that happens to be all of us.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Dunno?, all these new fangled devices known as anti saline stuff. Well, with the oceon beig full of water the salt can be removed and then theres drinking water. The USA is, I feel, manipulating the climate for rain water and that helps too. I feel Lake Ontario and Lake Erie should be left alone though..

Dallas



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   

By Majic

Where did you need to? I addressed the point, and the point stands.


Yeah, would that be around the point were you insinuated I proclaimed Socialism as the answer to everything? The same point were you basically professed the issues of climate change as solely one of political one-upmanship, refuting the fact that anyone that could actually care for the planet we live on without resorting to politics. Yeah, I think that was it.


By Majic

It is “above” this by not being a part of it. However, I don't ascribe false nobility to it. It's just an intellectual choice, not a mandate from God.

People are free to choose whatever religion they want. I'm just saying that a free thinker doesn't jump on the first bandwagon that comes along.


Umm….What are you talking about?

When did mention religion or God? Is this another case of ID? Ignoring facts so that what you to believe is true therefore it is?



The fact that some folks see that as taking sides makes my case more eloquently and convincingly than I ever will.


If I'm not mistaken, you are the one that turned this into a sides issue. To me it is about the planet we live on, I couldn't give a flying monkeys for whatever the politics is of those that will actually address it.


My cause is the promotion of skepticism and critical thought.


And my laughter is above the hearing of dogs.


I live out in the boonies, and want wind and solar on my property. However, setting that up is prohibitively expensive. For now, it's cheaper to buy electricity from my local utility.


Of course it’s expensive! Because no one with the means to make it popular or economical is interested! You're making my point for me here.


That's only one side of the struggle. It's important to remember that “corporations” is a very broad term.


No it isn’t and you know it. You know exactly what I’m reffering to. Weak.


The other side are the corporations that make their money off government programs, including regulated mandates like “green technology”, and that happens to be a very big business.


Oh give me a break. So now the companies that are at present given the meagre government benefits for reducing pollution are controlling everything. There hasn't even been a smillie invented to go with how weak that is.


The push for government legislation on Global Warming is being made by the same people who stand to profit from such legislation.


Who? Where? How? When? I’ve given you practical, logical reasons why investing in alternative technology would cost the current economical giants billions.

How exactly will they profit? I don’t need links, just some common sense rationalization.


I consider that something crucial to remember, because “sociopathic” corporations won't pay a dime for any of this.


Make up your mind, either their behind it all and want to convert us to “green” for profit or not. Which Is it?



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Point/Counterpoint

Since this is rapidly going nowhere, I'll summarize my position, because my interest in point-counterpoint cascades is inversely proportional to their length.

1. I remain undecided on the questions raised by Global Warming Theory. Taking a stand on either side of the issue requires a leap of faith I am unwilling to make. I have been repeatedly attacked and insulted for this, and I am witnessing others suffering the same. That's not what I come here for, and it's the main reason I normally avoid this topic on ATS.

2. While I don't know if current climate trends are unusual or man-made, I do know that the full-court press on Global Warming I am witnessing is man-made, and I've been watching this unfold since the '80s. All the little digs making their way into the press and this website are what arouse my skepticism, and the exchanges I see here and elsewhere fully justify it.

3. Whether Global Warming Theory is correct or not has NOTHING to do with the fact that people are being brainwashed over it, both pro and con. I urge my fellow members not to lose sight of this crucial distinction.

4. I see plenty of evidence that forces in support of Global Warming Theory and those opposed to it are using classic propaganda tactics to further their agendas. I refer to the resulting “controversies” as “religious wars”, because this phenomenon bears an uncanny resemblance to them. Divide and conquer. We are being deliberately divided over this, and that is never done for our own good.

5. A symptom of this tactic of fomenting deliberate division is found in the form of ATSers being unable to discuss the issue without insulting those who disagree with them. I would like to see this practice end.

6. There is big money driving the Global Warming debate, both pro and con. Those who claim it's “the people” versus “the corporations” are repeating a bald-faced lie. There is big money riding on both sides of this question.

7. The emergence of an Us/Them Dichotomy on the issue, where those who agree with one side are “good” and those who agree with the other side are “evil”, is symptomatic of the abandonment of reason for emotion. It is both ironic and disappointing to see some of the same members who denounced this sort of behavior in the War on Terrorism actively promoting it in the case of Global Warming.

8. People whose emotions have been inflamed do not think rationally, and are therefore easily manipulated.

9. That's what I'm seeing here.

All the rest of this is interesting, but my point, which is quite relevant to the discussion, is that this isn't just about Global Warming.

Hostility toward skepticism will succeed in driving myself and others away, but it won't change the truth.

I'm happy to talk about topics such as this provided the discussion is civil and pertinent.

If it turns into a discussion about me or my character, I'm out of here.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Points 1-5, who are you trying to convince?


The only inflamed emotions I see are in your last post.


Hostility toward skepticism will succeed in driving myself and others away,


Hostility towards skepticism is surely to be expected.


I'm happy to talk about topics such as this provided the discussion is civil and pertinent.


I might of treated this topic as more relevant to PTS, but that was only due to conviction. I don't think I ever insulted you directly or violated any ATS rules. I may have insulted your argumentative position, but I never insulted you personally.


If it turns into a discussion about me or my character, I'm out of here.


I never mentioned your character. I happen to think you're a very intelligent member of ATS, which was why I enjoyed engaging you in this (admittedly heated) discussion.

Otherwise, I think this is a complete cop out.

Never the less I will refrain from dancing around immaturely. For a while.

[edit on 25-8-2005 by kegs]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
The Joy Of Irony


Originally posted by kegs
Otherwise, I think this is a complete cop out.

My points stand unchallenged.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Okay Majic, Whatever. I enjoyed the argument.


The last word is all yours:



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Argument For The Sake Of Illustration


Originally posted by kegs
Okay Majic, Whatever. I enjoyed the argument.

I have also enjoyed our exchange, and am quite respectful of your position -- which I don't necessarily consider wrong, by the way.

I think we're focused on different things, which gives the appearance of greater disagreement than actually exists.

I get a lot of flak for not being more concise and, irony of ironies, this is me being concise (yeah, I know
). Please don't mistake the relative lack of flowers for acrimony, because it's not there. It's more a matter of concern on my part than anything.

Also, I get alt.flame flashbacks when I start to see lots of quote-snipping and point/counterpoint tit for tats, which is why I decided to summarize. It's usually more efficient.

I'm concerned about the effects of propaganda on ATS discussions, but I'm not mad at anyone here for showing signs of them. We're all subject to this sort of manipulation.

No one is immune, especially me, and I study this stuff as a hobby.

I'm trying to point out the problem I see as best I can, but my abilities are limited, like everyone else's.

If I can at least inspire some of my fellow members to take a look at this aspect of the Global Warming debate, then I've done something worthwhile.

Anything But The Last Word


Originally posted by kegs
The last word is all yours:

What, I only get one word? I'm doomed. DOOMED, I tells ya!


I'm skeptical that I really get the last word on this, to say the least.


Though I don't want the last word, if it's really mine, then here it is: a summary of my position is not a personal indictment, so please don't feel you need to be defensive about my opinions.

We disagree on some things. Not only is that okay, but the thrust of my whole argument is that the opposite is itself an evil.

We disagree because we have different point of views that come from living different lives, knowing different things and having different interests.

That is cause for celebration, and every civil discussion that takes place on ATS is precisely that: a celebration. So let's enjoy them!


Global Warming is an emotional issue. It wasn't always that way, but now it's that way by design.

Global Warming is a question for science, but it is also the subject of several conspiracies and, die-hard ATSer that I am, that is the aspect of Global Warming I am most keenly interested in.

What I find illuminating is that I don't have to travel far to find proof of them, because the proof is right here in our own backyard.

Global Warming is affecting the climate of ATS.

My appeal is that my fellow members not allow the topic to cause their own passions to overheat.






[edit on 8/25/2005 by Majic]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   
There is definitely going to be a global shortage of freshwater within the next 50 years, think of it along the same lines as when scientist were predicting peak oil, and no one listened . It took people years to see wars fought over oil before they realized the time had come, the same will be the case with water.

www.unep.org...
freshwater.unep.net...



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
and the rest of Europe is now flooding. The Swiss would like a drought about now...

[edit on 25-8-2005 by dave_54]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
two words..
ground water
there is plenty of groundwater to go around...It will be a good alternative while we clean up our acts with all of this pollution.

BlueAngel



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Oil And Water Don't Mix


Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
There is definitely going to be a global shortage of freshwater within the next 50 years, think of it along the same lines as when scientist were predicting peak oil, and no one listened .

This assumes that:

1. Demand for freshwater will exceed the supply globally, and

2. There will be no change in how humans obtain freshwater, and

3. Water cannot be recycled.

The earth is covered in water. It is incredibly abundant on our planet. If we really need water, it's not hard to find.

Making that water drinkable can be an issue, but in addition to technologies dating back millennia, new technologies are being developed to produce potable water from contaminated sources.

The primary reason these technologies are not more advanced is due to the relative abundance of freshwater, which obviates the need or incentive for developing expensive technologies.

That is changing, however, as populations grow. Demand for water purification technologies is growing, and many savvy entrepreneurs are already on the bandwagon. As supplies diminish and demand goes up, the cost of potable water will also go up, and plenty of greedy capitalists will be happy to help out.


The main problem with comparing freshwater and oil is that water, when used, remains water and is not actually consumed, while oil is destroyed when used.

While I don't think we need to worry about people having to wear stillsuits or sandworms slithering through the deserts of Europe, I do think we will see humans respond to the need for freshwater as we always have: by adapting.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
The worst is yet to come if history is any predictor. We have been in an unusually wet period evidently:

Link

Fortunately we have the tech to help. The ONLY thing that MAY help us is desalinization pumps from the ocean. As it is, there are parts of the US that are barely breaking even every year in terms of water-usage v.s. rainfall.

-P



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Oil And Water Don't Mix


Yes oil and water do not mix, as your salad dressing would suggest, but I digress....Yes there are many assumptions which my theory depends upon, but there are many more that are well evident that strengthen my theory none the less, once again I digress though.....

The only comparison that I was trying to make between oil and water was the popular attitudes concerning warnings in regard to said product. Just as you so perfectly displayed, many peoples arguments on water do not differ much from arguments regarding oil over the last fifty years or so....

Thank you for proving my point though Majic...

On a side note, of course there are differences, but I think it is these differences that will divert our attention away from the similarities that hold much more signifigance....

As for Stillsuits, and riding the worms, I too think that is a long way off........
Some say doom and gloom, some say Dune and gloom.....You be the judge.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Here in Finland this summer was also the hottest in many years, however last summer it rained more than it has done in many years. The climate fluctuates, I don't think this is anything permanent.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join