Global Warming Hysteria is actually a positive thing

Today, nobody is arguing that our climate is changing. Now, whether the climate change is caused by the humans or by the Sun/other elements is still up for debate.

But the Global Warming Hysteria and Climate Change Scam are actually positive things. Why, you would ask?

Because in the near future, due to the results of the Copenhaged Climate UN Summit COP15, the political decisions will be made. The decisions that will force people to take care of our planet. That will force people to waste less and consume less. To start protecting the environment. To start acting responsibly.

So, no matter if the Global Warming is a scam or an excuse to introduce the Global Government or the New World Order or any of those things that Alex Jones is shouting about, well - no matter what, in the future, whether we like it or not, we will be forced to take care of our planet. And that's not a bad thing at all.



Peace,
Mulder

reply to post by Spooky Fox Mulder


If it creates a global dialogue, I agree... it is a good thing. But if the debate is going to be one sided and the final decisions made despite that dialogue and in spite of those who feel that some of the current thought trends are faulty, then it is nothing more than an open display of power.

There is room here for some lateral movement based on discovery but only if TPTB are open to being moved.

The problem i have with that is that people get screwed are the poor.

We know its a con for the rich to get richer. I am all for one community thing, but do we really need to be all conned to get there?

Since humanity rose up from the Neanderthalian slump of pre-civilization, the stewardship and conservation of the planet has always been our responsibility, but no one...absolutely no one, can force another to accept responsibility. Responsibility is either accepted or it is not. The only thing that governments can force people to do is pay taxes and even that enforcement is dicey at best. If forcing people to pay taxes was so successful their wouldn't be prosecutors asking juries to convict tax evaders year after year. In the seminal Supreme Court Case McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall famously said:

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."

Those words are as true today as they were in 1819 when Marshall uttered them and a taxation on human behavior will only accomplish destruction, most likely to a necessary economy that has a far greater chance of creating technologies that might advance a better stewardship of the planet than any bloated government bureaucracy does. It is not the stewardship of the earth that the politicians who clamor to Copenhagen intend to enforce, it is the power to tax and to enrich major corporations with their dubious Cap and Trade schemes. GE alone stands to make billions of dollars from carbon pricing because of investments in technologies that never, ever would have survived a free market system. It will be through the investments of government and forced legislation requiring people to buy these carbon technologies that will benefit GE and other corporations but will they save the planet?

It is naivete to believe that this so called Climate Action Partnership, (CAP), will do anything other than solidify the rising profits of the status-quo at the very real expense of hardworking people who have long and diligently shown a willingness to accept responsibility. However, naivete as idealistic as it may be, is not by any stretch of the imagination, characteristic of accepting responsibility. The people who require a nanny state to force them to accept responsibility will never accept it and who require it the most are the corporatist elite who quite clearly view themselves as superior to the vast majority of the population on this planet.

Hysteria, in any form, under any circumstances, is not at all a good thing and is a fear based phenomenon that doesn't even come close to propelling humanity towards its true potential. When we as humans begin to not only accept the responsibility for our own actions, but for the actions of others and accept as much responsibility as we can possibly handle, then and only then will we begin the long arduous journey towards our fullest potential. Until that time, no amount of huffing and puffing and pretentious preening by ambitious politicians will blow the house of irresponsibility down.

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder


So, no matter if the Global Warming is a scam or an excuse to introduce the Global Government or the New World Order or any of those things that Alex Jones is shouting about, well - no matter what, in the future, whether we like it or not, we will be forced to take care of our planet. And that's not a bad thing at all.



Peace,
Mulder

Your statement can only be true if you somehow appreciate the bondage of slavery, over the blessings of liberty and freedom.

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Your statement can only be true if you somehow appreciate the bondage of slavery, over the blessings of liberty and freedom.

My dear Agent Nineteen, if you read my post more carefully before start drawing out conclusions and accusing people, you would find out that I am not speaking in favor or against the New World Order/Global Government.

What I mean here, dear Agent Nineteen, is that it is positive to see that humans will be, at one point in the future, forced to take care of this planet. It is good for the planet. Good for the nature. Good for the plants and animals. And good for humans. Good for becoming a responsible citizen of planet Earth.



Peace,
Mulder

Is nothing wrong with making people aware of our nature, our planet and the vulnerability of our species, but also it makes the profiteers of everything to come out with all kind of ideas and devices to cash out on the mass hysteria of the people, as usual we the people are the losers while others get to enrich their pockets with all kind of snail oils to guard us from global warming.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder
Today, nobody is arguing that our climate is changing. Now, whether the climate change is caused by the humans or by the Sun/other elements is still up for debate.

But the Global Warming Hysteria and Climate Change Scam are actually positive things. Why, you would ask?

Because in the near future, due to the results of the Copenhaged Climate UN Summit COP15, the political decisions will be made. The decisions that will force people to take care of our planet. That will force people to waste less and consume less. To start protecting the environment. To start acting responsibly.

So, no matter if the Global Warming is a scam or an excuse to introduce the Global Government or the New World Order or any of those things that Alex Jones is shouting about, well - no matter what, in the future, whether we like it or not, we will be forced to take care of our planet. And that's not a bad thing at all.



Peace,
Mulder

Its ironic that you end by saying "peace" but in fact you very vocally are celebrating unprovoked violence... built on a foundation of dishonesty.

1. For as long as people only save their planet so much as they are forced to, humanity has no future.

2. For as long as "leaders" like the politicians who attend Copenhagen think in terms of what they can force people to do against their will, humanity has no future.

3. For as long as "leaders" think the way to lead people is to make problems appear worse than they are by creating fake doomsday tall tales, humanity has serious problems.

Your sentiment is widely shared by a crowd known as EcoNazis. By their view, humans are by nature parasites that will lead themselves to doom, but fortunately a select few elite dictators can force the parasites into submission.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The solution to global warming is for people who are concerned to do something about it. And getting politicians to do something isn't doing something about it. It is getting someone else to do something about it.

That is the solution you have that you are so excited about. You are so excited that you have gotten someone else besides yourself to do something about it. And so what are these politicians going to do? They are going to do what they are best at. Collect money and throw it into a giant money hole! Oh hip hip horray for Coppenhagen... the EcoNazis will have yet more taxes extorted from mostly poor people. Because that is what "modern" forms of taxation do... tax the poor just as much or more than the rich. And yes I'm willing to back that claim with proof should you challenge it. Wait no I'll just spill it out.

1. Coppenhagen EcoNazis "solution" will be more taxes.
2. The tax will be on energy.
3. Poor people use up energy as equal proportion of their salary as the rich.
4. Therefore, the EcoNazis solution is to screw over poor people who are already paying 40% tax rates at least in the USA if not everywhere across the globe.
5. They will then throw the money in a giant money hole.
6. They will then continue on their lives doing nothing... satisfied that the senseless dictators in power have done their dirty deeds for them.

Alright everyone. Judging by your answers, I have only one conclusion here:
Let us all just screw the climate. Let us all pollute, cut the trees, kill animals and produce as much CO2 emissions as possible. Let us all rise against the Global Elite and let us all do EXACTLY what they don't want us to do. Let us all pollute and consume. As much as possible. Because Global Warming is just a scam anyway and because we the people know the Truth.

Let us all stop caring about the planet Earth. Hooray for the freedom of mankind.

Let us fight for our right to pollute this planet.





Peace,
Mulder



[edit on 10-12-2009 by Spooky Fox Mulder]

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder
Alright everyone. Judging by your answers, I have only one conclusion here:
Let us all just screw the climate. Let us all pollute, cut the trees, kill animals and produce as much CO2 emissions as possible. Let us all rise against the Global Elite and let us all do EXACTLY what they don't want us to do. Let us all pollute and consume. As much as possible. Because Global Warming is just a scam anyway and because we the people know the Truth.

Let us all stop caring about the planet Earth. Hooray for the freedom of mankind.

Let us fight for our right to pollute this planet.







Peace,
Mulder



[edit on 10-12-2009 by Spooky Fox Mulder]

My dear brother Spooky, how tragically sad you have interpreted the responses you got to your own advocacy of tyranny in the name of some greater good and praise of hysteria as being anti-conservation and environmentally unsound. You, in an earlier post took another poster to task claiming that poster didn't read your original post very carefully, but indeed, how carefully have you read these posts?



[edit on 10-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

[edit on 10-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Your statement can only be true if you somehow appreciate the bondage of slavery, over the blessings of liberty and freedom.

My dear Agent Nineteen, if you read my post more carefully before start drawing out conclusions and accusing people, you would find out that I am not speaking in favor or against the New World Order/Global Government.

What I mean here, dear Agent Nineteen, is that it is positive to see that humans will be, at one point in the future, forced to take care of this planet. It is good for the planet. Good for the nature. Good for the plants and animals. And good for humans. Good for becoming a responsible citizen of planet Earth.



Peace,
Mulder

Truth and transparency from elected servants is good for their employers, the people. Decisions are best made when all the information and truth is revealed to all the people, with no shadow governments or militia existing, including where billions of dollars in the US have dissappeared and cannot be accounted for. In any other country all involved would be in prison. Putting corporate heads, banking heads and leaders in prison for crimes against humanity, revealing all the hidden information we really need to know, and taking over the underground Dumbs and making readjustments so they could support all people in real emergencies, etc etc, would really good for the enviroment, including moving many homes and recylcing them into ecofarm types, solar and sun devices, geo thermal, and numerous other technologies, THAT THOSE AT THE COPENHAGEN MEETINGS HAVE BURIED AND COMMITTED MURDER TO HIDE.

reply to post by Spooky Fox Mulder


Others said it best, ecoNazi's believe they know better than the rest of humanity; again.

How do the elite and governments deal with anything?

Tax and control. Does it solve anything?

And you think tax and control will be the way to help our environment? By giving the very same elitist and corrupt governments more control, you are endorsing even worse conditions.

You should not even be allowed to use the Name and Avatar you use.

The Truth is out there, but someone does not want to see it.

Eyes wide shut. Nuff said.

In some years, those who want to protect the nature of this planet, will be hated by those, who would rather be "free" and don't care about this planet.

The irony of the situation is that none of humans would ever be free. "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

I don't have time for discussion about who is free and who is not free. I'll leave it up to you.

I'm here to try to save this planet. The humans, on other hand, must learn to save themselves.




Peace,
Mulder

reply to post by Spooky Fox Mulder


No, it's a lie to make more money and power-hungary

They also want One child Policy like in china to reduced population, if we have that on american now, we will be watching porn more often!

That the problem at china, too many anime, too many boy than girl result serious problem.


However, to be honest, I don't believe in any of it what the government said, I NEVER TRUST SOMEONE WHO CALLED US A VIRUS WHO IS ALSO HUMAN

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder
In some years, those who want to protect the nature of this planet, will be hated by those, who would rather be "free" and don't care about this planet.

The irony of the situation is that none of humans would ever be free. "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

I don't have time for discussion about who is free and who is not free. I'll leave it up to you.

I'm here to try to save this planet. The humans, on other hand, must learn to save themselves.




Peace,
Mulder

It is dubious at best that you are doing anything at all to save a planet that in all likelihood doesn't need rescue from an ill informed poster such as yourself. As to the humans you've so smugly declared must learn to save themselves, they have been doing so for several thousands years now and if they are free to do so, then according to your own logic they must be hopelessly enslaved.

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder
But the Global Warming Hysteria and Climate Change Scam are actually positive things. Why, you would ask?

Because in the near future, due to the results of the Copenhaged Climate UN Summit COP15, the political decisions will be made. The decisions that will force people to take care of our planet. That will force people to waste less and consume less. To start protecting the environment. To start acting responsibly.

So, no matter if the Global Warming is a scam or an excuse to introduce the Global Government or the New World Order or any of those things that Alex Jones is shouting about, well - no matter what, in the future, whether we like it or not, we will be forced to take care of our planet. And that's not a bad thing at all.

I quite agree. It is getting more and more imperative that we reign in the myriad of impacts humans have on the planet.

Originally posted by andy1033
The problem i have with that is that people get screwed are the poor.

We know its a con for the rich to get richer. I am all for one community thing, but do we really need to be all conned to get there?

This argument is a red herring. While it is true in this instance the rich will get richer and the poor poorer, this is the case with EVERYTHING in today's world. The world is run by a super rich oligarchy and this undemocratic power structure taints everything, not just the environmental arena. So to use this as an excuse to not take action is a cop-out in my opinion.

If this is a legitimate excuse then we are stuck in a check mate because EVERY action will be tainted by the ultra-rich who run the world.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Since humanity rose up from the Neanderthalian slump of pre-civilization, the stewardship and conservation of the planet has always been our responsibility, but no one...absolutely no one, can force another to accept responsibility. Responsibility is either accepted or it is not. The only thing that governments can force people to do is pay taxes and even that enforcement is dicey at best. If forcing people to pay taxes was so successful their wouldn't be prosecutors asking juries to convict tax evaders year after year. In the seminal Supreme Court Case McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall famously said:

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."...

Sadly the notion that: "Responsibility is either accepted or it is not" is true to an extent. Yes people either take the responsibility or they do not. However, once someone NOT taking it begins to threaten the rights of others the group must step in and enforce sets of rules to balance freedom and order.

We now live in a world where the rights of the group to live on a healthy thriving planet that is not threatened by environmental destruction and whose (the groups) well-being is not threatened by toxic pollution is not diminished by other people either NOT taking responsibility or who believe that their right to consume resources and create pollution to make a profit.

The need to balance freedom and order is tricky and someone always looses but in a world with 6 bilion + human beings it is a vital necessity.

It is naivete to believe that this so called Climate Action Partnership, (CAP), will do anything other than solidify the rising profits of the status-quo at the very real expense of hardworking people who have long and diligently shown a willingness to accept responsibility.

Again the economic red herring. We the average person are already getting raped by the ultra-rich. We pay the price for their environmental impacts through our medical bills (their pollution that poisons the environment and us), we pay the price from diminishing non-renewable resources. In every case WE pay, not them. To try to say that we can not take any action to protect our environment because it is going to make the rich richer is weak at best. EVERYTHING that happens today makes them richer and us poorer, that is another fight that should not be confused with this one.

However, naivete as idealistic as it may be, is not by any stretch of the imagination, characteristic of accepting responsibility. The people who require a nanny state to force them to accept responsibility will never accept it and who require it the most are the corporatist elite who quite clearly view themselves as superior to the vast majority of the population on this planet.

It is a state that prevents one group from doing another group harm. It is about protecting rights, not taking them away.

Also, I agree with the premise here that it is the corporate elite who need to be put in check. However, separating their exploitation of us is another step and a vital one.

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by Spooky Fox Mulder
So, no matter if the Global Warming is a scam or an excuse to introduce the Global Government or the New World Order or any of those things that Alex Jones is shouting about, well - no matter what, in the future, whether we like it or not, we will be forced to take care of our planet. And that's not a bad thing at all.

Your statement can only be true if you somehow appreciate the bondage of slavery, over the blessings of liberty and freedom.

You have no liberty or freedom to HARM others. If there is a group who will not take responsibility for the damage their actions cause others they need to be reigned in. If you feel like this infringes on YOUR rights too bad because I feel like it infringes on MY rights. See the issue?

Answering everyone’s post is not going to happen so I will say this:

We have to take action to protect our environment and the standard arguments against doing so are your typical lassie-faire BS. There HAS to be order balanced with freedom. Pure freedom is only going to make our situation worse.

Arguing that this is simply the rich getting richer is also BS, EVERYTHING that happens in today’s world does this. Until we defeat the ultra-rich oligarchy that rules the world this will be the case.

While it is obvious that the rich screw us every chance they get it is also obvious that the Earth needs us to start paying attention. This is why the current rise in environmental awareness is a good thing.

Edit to Add:

While I see the point that the current Hysteria over Climate Change is a good thing as it brings the average person's awareness of the importance of environmental stewardship to a new height, which is good, I can also see the point of those opposed to making Climate Change the #1 point of action.

In a world with so many clear threats to environmental integrity and with the debate concerning the extent to which humans play a part in Climate Change unresolved and ongoing, I can see where our collective energy could be put to more efficient use.

That does not mean I do not see huge potential in limited carbon emission to push the advancement of new technology and methodologies in human machinations and curb environmental degradation, only that those who are argue this point of view have a legitimate argument that I will not call erroneous.


[edit on 12-12-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by Animal


Animal,

It is good that you are willing to acknowledge, if only just in words, that people do not have the right to harm others. However, your assertion that there are the so called "rights of the group" is misguided. Groups do not have rights only individuals do. Individuals may, if they so choose, form a group to better protect their rights and indeed, that was the very purpose of government, to form a more perfect union in order to establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic stability and provide for the common welfare. Yet, no group has any special rights more superior to any individual with in that group or outside of that group. No individual has any obligation to be a part of a group they choose not be a part of. The group can not just impose their will upon others, simply because they have some sort of majority.

There is no special trick to balancing freedom and order and without freedom there is never order, only chaos or an appearance of order that disguises tyranny. However, that tyranny will always overstep its bounds as will any soul who refuses to accept responsibility. The self evident nature of rights lies in the fact that no individual or group of individuals has the right to hurt others outside of defending themselves. If the assertion from you and your group becomes that I and other individuals are harming you simply because we exist, then I and other individuals will demand you prove this. It is imperative you prove it, otherwise it is just an alarmist reaction to your own fears. Your fears do not have a special prerogative over other peoples rights.

It is rather ironic that you will dismiss my assertion that there are several hard working individuals across the planet who have accepted responsibility for their actions and do what they can to alleviate any harm that might be caused by their existence through due diligence and a profound respect for the environment in which they live in order to call my dismissal of the Climate Action Partnership a fraudulent scheme designed to enrich-en an elite few at the expense of the many, "an economic red herring". The red herring is, in fact, your own assertion that the average person is being raped by the ultra rich and that we pay the price for their environmental impacts. The irony of this is your own refusal to accept responsibility instead playing the blame game laying the responsibility upon nameless, faceless "ultra-rich" who wouldn't be ultra-rich if we weren't buying the products they sell.

If you believe so passionately that not enough is being done to protect the planet then do more yourself. Take a bold stand and refuse to own a piston engine vehicle. If this means your reliant upon inefficient or even non-existent buses and this makes it difficult to get to and from work tell your boss that he or she has a responsibility to the planet and they will just have to work around your schedule so that together you and your boss can do more. If your boss accepts this contract, then good for the both of you. If your boss refuses to accept this contract and shows no sympathy for your tardiness due to a rejection of piston engine automobiles then try to get to work on time. I ride my bicycle to and from work and moved closer to work so I could accomplish this without jeopardizing my job, I know it can be done. That is not to say just because I am doing it, you have to as well, but I'll be damned if I am going to go away quietly into the night and accept some nonsensical form of tyranny because you have erroneously deemed me a rape victim of some nameless, faceless ultra rich and that I am the one who should instead pay your from of taxation instead of theirs. I should not have to, and do my damnedest to avoid, paying any bogus form of taxation.

If a tax can't be defeated it probably is not a legal tax to begin with and if it is, it is so because of its voluntary nature. Yet, you are not recommending any voluntary taxation, you are advocating a global regime that would gladly tax me out of any wealth I might acquire in the name of protecting a planet that has not made clear it needs protecting. Just today I read in the L.A. Times an insidious op-ed piece by Tim Rutten where he asserts that the average person is ignorant to science. This is hogwash and one of the single greatest complaints from those who question the advocates of anthropogenic global warming and its lack of foundation in real hard science, particularly in physics. The AGW crowd uses Orwellian double think tactics and language such as "global warming" which any person with just a rudimentary background in science knows is the period of time in between ice ages that do exist, or the every day phenomenon that happens when the sun rises followed by a cooling when the sun sets. These phenomenons are not akin to Creationism as Rutten attempts to portray it in his op-ed piece and it does not reveal an ignorance of science, it is fundamental knowledge. Furthermore, this very same AGW group, finally realizing they latched onto the wrong term to sell their brand of propaganda, using the term "global warming" then changed the term to "climate change" to describe an overall effect that would happen over time.

That the climate is changing is no doubt, and that it has been changing through out the history of civilization should be of no doubt either. It does not take a specialized scientist to know that there is a consensus amongst scientist that there was in the medieval times a period of global warming that greatly contributed to the agricultural growth, particularly in South America and that period of warming was followed by a period of cooling that quite literally froze the Thames in London, made the Revolutionary War in America even deadlier and caused famine in certain Northern areas because of the shorter seasons. This is all undisputed knowledge that, in fact, became the very type of knowledge that caused Micheal Mann so much trouble with his once vaunted "hockey stick" chart. I learned of the period of warming in medieval times and the period of cooling that followed back in Jr. High School at a public school in an agricultural town in New Mexico. My point being that I was not a victim of "big oil" propaganda, I was taught this by government funded teachers...

Cont:

reply to post by Animal


Continuing...

By the time I got to high school I was all ready taught that Co2 was a necessary gas to the existence of all life on the planet, especially to the health of plant life, since plants breathe in Co2 and exhale oxygen. This symbiotic relationship between plants and animals is very reliant upon enough C02 in the atmosphere.

By the time I got to college I was taught that the so called "greenhouse" gasses that this AGW crowd is so desperately trying to scare everyone with is in fact, another very necessary element to the ecosystem as without the greenhouse gasses we would all either freeze to death or starve to death due the famines such a cooling would bring about. Furthermore, I learned in a geology class in college that the vast majority of greenhouse gasses are made up of water vapors and that Co2 is but a small portion of those greenhouse gasses. We are talking about a 95% ratio to a less than 5% ratio, and any increase in Co2 would not be a threat to humanity and could very well be the necessary boon to an increasing population as it would only encourage more plant life. Then, about a decade ago, a bunch of government funded scientists began screaming that our increase of Co2 was a disaster in the making. Suddenly today, I am told to believe there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists, including geologists, that Co2 is a threat to humanity not a boon. Suddenly I am being told by left wing journalists who have made clear on a number of occasions that we are a planet overpopulated, that what I was taught in school could not be believed and that I should instead believe the new paradigm which is cause by the overpopulation and increase in industrial technologies, rather than believe the standard belief that our planet and nature has a way of correcting over populations and under populations either by allowing those species not equipped to survive to perish and by thinning out through famine, pestilence and even and various other natural disasters, the overpopulated species.

Ironically, the AGW, just like Rutten in the L.A. times today, attempt to paint skeptics such as myself as people who believe in Creationism and are ignorant and even willfully so to the intricacies of science. Never mind that I am not a Creationist, never mind that I have long accepted Darwin's theory as having, at the very least some very real validity, and ironically it is the left who would reject Darwins notion of "survival of the fittest" because that doesn't fit into their own world view, but I am supposed to believe just because some self proclaimed erudite intellectual from the L.A. Times says that I am just a troglodyte incapable of understanding science, simply because the so called "science" being shoved down my throat today does not gibe with the science I was taught years ago. It was years ago that I was taught the scientific method, and years ago that I learned of Koch's postulate, but today I should accept that my own understanding of the scientific method is too stringent and when it comes to viruses my own understanding of Koch's postulate is even stricter and unreasonable so I am a denialist and dissenter and guilty of old world religious fervor.

I am supposed to accept from smug self proclaimed intellectuals as Rutten, and even people like you, that my own education just wasn't good enough and that since I do not buy into collectivism I must be dumber than you guys. I am supposed to believe that notions of individuals rights are not functions of a natural law but rather privileges granted by governments and that I am not, nor are my friends and neighbors, capable of self government and what is required is an elite form of government that is every bit as rich as the so called "ultra rich" you blame for the imagined disaster you offer as prophesy, because they are somehow wiser than I and I am just too stupid to recognize it. All my efforts at education matter not. All my facility for language and reason have no bearing, I am a Creationist not because I advocate a universe created by God but because I have a healthy skepticism of the dubious "science" being shoved down my throat today. I am a "denialist" and "dissenter" not because these terms have any valid purpose in the scientific field where theories should be radically dis-proven if they can not be proven, but because I do not willingly go along with a political agenda.

I am supposed to belief I am less moral than you or our buddy Spooky, because you two have declared yourselves "saviors" of the planet, while I simply do what I can on my own to reduce the damage I might cause through my own existence. What I do, in your view is not enough, what you do, and I have no reason to believe that you or Spooky have rejected piston engines in favor of a "greener" technology, nor do I have any reason to believe you or Spooky have rejected plastics in favor of a return to glass containers, conversely I have not made any assumptions that you aren't doing your best personally to reduce the pollution we tend to create through our existence, I simply reject your assertion that I must necessarily bow down to a global ruler who demands of me even more, while they fly their jets to Copenhagen and then arrive in limousines so they may place restrctions upon me. And, finally, I entered this thread to speak my mind because spooky declared the hysteria a part of the greater good, when it is my own experience that hysteria is profoundly stupid and has more ill effect than good, So, if you choose to praise hysteria along with Spooky, this is your choice and by right you can voice your opinion as loudly and as long as you want. However, I will do my part in exercising my right as an individual and I will not arrogantly presume to speak for any group, declaring that my representation of that group gives me a special privilege over you as an individual, I will quite simply speak for myself and rely upon the knowledge I have done my due diligence in gaining to form a reasonable conclusion, and based upon that conclusion, I will act accordingly.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Animal

 

Animal,

It is good that you are willing to acknowledge, if only just in words, that people do not have the right to harm others. However, your assertion that there are the so called "rights of the group" is misguided. Groups do not have rights only individuals do. Individuals may, if they so choose, form a group to better protect their rights and indeed, that was the very purpose of government, to form a more perfect union in order to establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic stability and provide for the common welfare. Yet, no group has any special rights more superior to any individual with in that group or outside of that group. No individual has any obligation to be a part of a group they choose not be a part of. The group can not just impose their will upon others, simply because they have some sort of majority.

Okay, then let me clarify by saying this. My right to live in a world free from environmental depletion, degradation, and pollution and the subsequent impacts to my quality of life should not be compromised by an-others right to consume resources and produce pollution. Am I mistaken?

There is no special trick to balancing freedom and order and without freedom there is never order, only chaos or an appearance of order that disguises tyranny. However, that tyranny will always overstep its bounds as will any soul who refuses to accept responsibility.

Okay, I am not sure I am actually following what you are saying here.
#1 Why is there no trick to balancing freedom and order (specifically)?
#2 Define: with out freedom there is never order.
#3 Define: 'only chaos or an appearance of order that disguises tyranny'.

The self evident nature of rights lies in the fact that no individual or group of individuals has the right to hurt others outside of defending themselves. If the assertion from you and your group becomes that I and other individuals are harming you simply because we exist, then I and other individuals will demand you prove this. It is imperative you prove it, otherwise it is just an alarmist reaction to your own fears. Your fears do not have a special prerogative over other peoples rights.

This is basically a failed argument because of this fundamental aspect: "If the assertion from you and your group becomes that I and other individuals are harming you simply because we exist".

I have in no way made an argument that you or anyone else is harming me simply because they 'exist'.

The argument I am making is that there are sets of behaviors that are choices that do me and others harm.

The choice to consume resources beyond the planets ability to provide resources is a choice that hurts the entire group.

The choice to produce waste beyond the planets ability to process said wastes is a choice that hurts the entire group.

The choice to horde resources beyond the planets ability to provide sufficient resources for everyone living is a choice that hurts the entire group.

This is the argument from the Tragedy of the Commons which is:

a situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.

It is rather ironic that you will dismiss my assertion that there are several hard working individuals across the planet who have accepted responsibility for their actions and do what they can to alleviate any harm that might be caused by their existence through due diligence and a profound respect for the environment in which they live in order to call my dismissal of the Climate Action Partnership a fraudulent scheme designed to enrich-en an elite few at the expense of the many, "an economic red herring".

But you are talking about the actions of a few and the problem at hand, the range of our environmental crisis, is the work of a much larger group than a few.

And yes, I still see the argument that C+T is fundamentally unsound because it is an economic system. While it will undoubtedly work to make the rich richer and the poor poorer it will also have a profound impact on the impact humans have on the planet. EVERYTHING that happens in today's world is made to benefit the elite, EVERYTHING. That does not mean that all these machinations of us humans ONLY serve this one function.

Dismissing C+T, and all the other environmental initiatives gaining steam today, because the rich are going to benefit ignores the sad reality that today the elite ensure EVERYTHING serves them.

We might as well all go home and do NOTHING ever again if we don't want to benefit the elite at our expense. Dont drive, dont eat, dont drink, dont read, do NOTHING. Becasue EVERYTHING enriches them at our expense.

The red herring is, in fact, your own assertion that the average person is being raped by the ultra rich and that we pay the price for their environmental impacts. The irony of this is your own refusal to accept responsibility instead playing the blame game laying the responsibility upon nameless, faceless "ultra-rich" who wouldn't be ultra-rich if we weren't buying the products they sell.

Oh please elaborate on this. In what way can I take responsibility and thus negate the ultra-rich oligarchy's dominance over wealth. How can I take responsibility and thus prevent the massive over consumption of resources and pollution perpetuated by today's paradigm of production and consumption?

If you believe so passionately that not enough is being done to protect the planet then do more yourself. Take a bold stand and refuse to own a piston engine vehicle. If this means your reliant upon inefficient or even non-existent buses and this makes it difficult to get to and from work tell your boss that he or she has a responsibility to the planet and they will just have to work around your schedule so that together you and your boss can do more.

Thanks for backing up my above statement. We live in a society that has an established paradigm that through our manufactured dependence on the ultra-rich oligarchy prevents me from being able to make any substantial impact on the state of the world.

So much for your PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I and many like me do our best yet without fundamental changes within the GROUP no adequate changes will be made. And apparently, when you take a good look around, the group is ignoring their responsibility. Generally not out of malice but out of being TOLD by those in power that no fundamental changes are needed. Just keep on consuming and everything will be fine.

If a tax can't be defeated it probably is not a legal tax to begin with and if it is, it is so because of its voluntary nature. Yet, you are not recommending any voluntary taxation, you are advocating a global regime that would gladly tax me out of any wealth I might acquire in the name of protecting a planet that has not made clear it needs protecting.

Another statement that I would LOVE to see you explain and back up.

Just today I read in the L.A. Times an insidious op-ed piece by Tim Rutten where he asserts that the average person is ignorant to science. This is hogwash and one of the single greatest complaints from those who question the advocates of anthropogenic global warming and its lack of foundation in real hard science, particularly in physics. The AGW crowd uses Orwellian double think tactics and language such as "global warming" which any person with just a rudimentary background in science knows is the period of time in between ice ages that do exist, or the every day phenomenon that happens when the sun rises followed by a cooling when the sun sets. These phenomenons are not akin to Creationism as Rutten attempts to portray it in his op-ed piece and it does not reveal an ignorance of science, it is fundamental knowledge. Furthermore, this very same AGW group, finally realizing they latched onto the wrong term to sell their brand of propaganda, using the term "global warming" then changed the term to "climate change" to describe an overall effect that would happen over time.

Sadly there is amble evidence to support the notion that humans CAN and DO impact this natural cycle.

So you can save your dogmatic diatribe as it really has little merit.



[edit on 12-12-2009 by Animal]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
That the climate is changing is no doubt, and that it has been changing through out the history of civilization should be of no doubt either. It does not take a specialized scientist to know that there is a consensus amongst scientist that there was in the medieval times a period of global warming that greatly contributed to the agricultural growth, particularly in South America and that period of warming was followed by a period of cooling that quite literally froze the Thames in London, made the Revolutionary War in America even deadlier and caused famine in certain Northern areas because of the shorter seasons. This is all undisputed knowledge that, in fact, became the very type of knowledge that caused Micheal Mann so much trouble with his once vaunted "hockey stick" chart. I learned of the period of warming in medieval times and the period of cooling that followed back in Jr. High School at a public school in an agricultural town in New Mexico. My point being that I was not a victim of "big oil" propaganda, I was taught this by government funded teachers...

Do you deny that there is considerable evidence to support that humans can contribute to the severity of this cycle?

By the time I got to high school I was all ready taught that Co2 was a necessary gas to the existence of all life on the planet, especially to the health of plant life, since plants breathe in Co2 and exhale oxygen. This symbiotic relationship between plants and animals is very reliant upon enough C02 in the atmosphere.

Do you deny that CO2's concentrations effect climate? Do you also deny that the various other gases, most of which were not IN our atmosphere prior tot he industrial revolution do not contribute to the severity of the climate cycle?

By the time I got to college I was taught that the so called "greenhouse" gasses that this AGW crowd is so desperately trying to scare everyone with is in fact, another very necessary element to the ecosystem as without the greenhouse gasses we would all either freeze to death or starve to death due the famines such a cooling would bring about. Furthermore, I learned in a geology class in college that the vast majority of greenhouse gasses are made up of water vapors and that Co2 is but a small portion of those greenhouse gasses. We are talking about a 95% ratio to a less than 5% ratio, and any increase in Co2 would not be a threat to humanity and could very well be the necessary boon to an increasing population as it would only encourage more plant life. Then, about a decade ago, a bunch of government funded scientists began screaming that our increase of Co2 was a disaster in the making. Suddenly today, I am told to believe there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists, including geologists, that Co2 is a threat to humanity not a boon. Suddenly I am being told by left wing journalists who have made clear on a number of occasions that we are a planet overpopulated, that what I was taught in school could not be believed and that I should instead believe the new paradigm which is cause by the overpopulation and increase in industrial technologies, rather than believe the standard belief that our planet and nature has a way of correcting over populations and under populations either by allowing those species not equipped to survive to perish and by thinning out through famine, pestilence and even and various other natural disasters, the overpopulated species.

All or nothing huh? Yes CO2 is fundamental to life, but you knwo what they say. . .'moderation'. . .'too much of a good thing'. . .

Your argument fails to take into account SCALE. Yes, greenhouses use CO2 to increase plant life. I would not be surprised if plants enjoyed elevated levels in the atmosphere right now. However I would also not be surprised to see that when our rapidly increasing levels of green houses gasses push the planet to a tipping point, where all the ice melts, the oceans thermal belts shut down and we enter a new ice age making vast tracts of the planet uninhabitable PEOPLE will be bummed.

Especially if they were to learn that the SEVERITY of the climatic shift was due in part to human mismanagement and arrogance.

And here I will leave you as you are simply digressing into a diatribe that has so very little to do with what I posted. Perhaps your rant made you feel better?

Regardless, I stand by my assertion that:

#1)balancing freedom and order is tricky
#2 that the increasing public frenzy over ACC is good as it increases awareness of the environmental issues at hand
#3 that the economic dismissal of C+T is a red herring
#4 that we need to enforce environmental protection otherwise it will be ignored, especially by those who tend to do the most damage in the name of profits

[edit on 12-12-2009 by Animal]