Portuguese island to become first CO2-free island

reply to post by Neo_Serf

I say that not in a rigid faith based sense, but more in a realization that I have no way of judging the data accurately, while you indeed have an elevated level of understanding, and consequently your superiors have even a greater grasp of the subject. Conversely, the opponents of AGW are far better versed (rightly or wrongly) in their understanding and criticism of the theory, and thus it is their findings I compare to the findings of the elite in your circle.

I come to ATS much more to discuss conspiracies than I do science. I find myself having to constantly delve into the science because I see so many people misquoting and misrepresenting it, but trying to correct them is a pretty thankless task unfortunately, and because of that I'd actually rather stay away from it to be honest.

But I think there are also plenty of ways to make informed judgments here without even having to consult the science. In many ways the science is actually the biggest minefield for getting to the truth because it is so complicated. You mention there are people out there far better than us at grasping it - but that also makes them far better at spinning it into whatever they want you to think it says.

So I'd rather discuss the conspiracy in fact. But that discussion has been so thoroughly hijacked by one side that I don't even know how to get most people around here to consider the other, without having them go into some hysterical identity crisis. Again, the ego thing creates a huge barrier. For a lot of people, considering the possibility that it's actually the skeptics that were lying and making **** up, means also considering the possibility that they were the ones actually being lied to in the end. And from what I've seen around here - these proudly self-professed "skeptics" absolutely CANNOT handle that!

I have a ton of evidence - and by evidence I mean HARD evidence: leaked memos, court documents, paper trails, admissions of guilt - on how far the denial industry has gone to completely manufacture doubt and skepticism over the scientific consensus on global warming.

I believe this evidence would make tons of people's heads explode around here. But that's exactly the problem - it will make their heads explode. And I can't figure out a way to get them to put the pieces back together thoughtfully, instead of just shrieking in defensive terror as a result.

So instead I just get lectured constantly on how bad the science is with rebuttals forged by bad (skeptical) science. I have to listen to people repeatedly tell me to "follow the money" when they apparently have no idea that money flows in both directions. I get told about how global warming is nothing but sensationalist alarmism while they make all sorts of sensationalist alarmist claims about email scandals and carbon taxes. It just goes on and on...

reply to post by Neo_Serf

My 'country' (finding that anarcho capitalism is the only valid application of the NAP, I use the term 'country' as an invalid abstract) is currently engaged in two aggressive and immoral wars that are no doubt primarily motivated by oil dependency.

I am Canadian too, so I hear ya. This is the dangling thread I would suggest you pull on more if you want to explore some of my claims on why there is actually a conspiracy to deny anthropogenic global warming. It's more than just oil money, it involves the complete control of people and resources. Everyone seems to think carbon taxes are just another means to control and enslave us, but they completely forget those taxes are designed to get us off carbon - i.e. the tool that is ALREADY used to control and enslave us.

If you don't use fossil fuels then you aren't dependent on "them" AND you don't pay carbon taxes.

Meanwhile our entire economy is a giant scam as is, because it's designed to keep everyone chained to, and obsessed with, the sort of material devices that foster mindless little wage slaves devoted to obtaining them. The global warming problem, if it's real, means restructuring our collective priorities (and thus our whole economy) in a way that suits the best interests of the planet before the interests of the people exploiting it for personal profit. Obviously some of them recognize that, and have a HUGE problem with it.

Some further reading I would recommend on this angle would be -

My previous ATS thread: You have all gotten in bed with the enemy.

This article from the Guardian: Climate change v capitalism: the feast is almost over

reply to post by Neo_Serf

One of my main problems with AGW is that is stands in the way of 'clean coal', which I understand only releases CO2 and water vapor into the atmosphere.

Clean coal is a total farce if you ask me. It's not any different than regular coal, it mainly just refers to capturing the resultant carbon emissions and trying to sequester them in the Earth (quite literally sweeping everything under the rug!) which has all sorts of pitfalls and environmental problems of it's own. It's also very expensive itself, so why spend that money trying to sweep the problem under the rug when you can just use it to eliminate it altogether right?

When I was referring to the dangers of coal mining I meant both the human cost and the environmental. I appreciate the fact that you know some coal miners personally, and thus have some direct insight there, but I would also imagine they are telling you (or being told themselves) the things that help them keep their jobs, not what's necessarily best for the environment.

I can't imagine anyone looking at current mountain top removal practices:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d490f696342.jpg[/atsimg]

Or coal ash spills like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4104951a598c.jpg[/atsimg]

And declaring it unintrusive.

There are also numerous other issues that wikipedia has to have it's own page for them:
Environmental impact of coal mining and burning

And there's also the human impact as well of course. People can say it's getting safer, but it's still subject to the same corruptions as everything else:
Mine Disaster Started With Company Culture

So trying to rationalize all this by comparing it to something like oil is basically like saying Stalin wasn't such a bad dude next to Hitler

And it's not like wind and solar are perfect either of course - they still require resources and materials to build and set up themselves, you have to be careful where you place them - but when you weigh all the pros and cons out there, I think it's ultimately kind of a no-brainer. This cartoon says it pretty well:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7cdc6e6df188.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Neo_Serf

I *desperately* yearn for the day when we no longer need to kill strangers in the name of our energy needs.

Hey me too, and again, I contend that AGW is the very problem that's finally forcing that day to arrive - which is exactly why certain parties are so vehemently against it. For example:

on a principled level, anything the state ferociously advocates, to me, is automatically suspect.

Are you so sure they ferociously advocate it? Recently the Republican congress held a vote to declare otherwise:

Republican-Controlled Committee Legislates That Climate Change Does Not Exist

The Bush Administration was a notorious muzzler of climate science, and our boy Harper took a page straight from their playbook:

Harper Government Stifles the Truth

This week the Montreal Gazette reported on a leaked document showing that the information restrictions brought in by the Harper government have severely restricted the media’s access to government researchers.

“Scientists have noticed a major reduction in the number of requests, particularly from high-profile media, who often have same-day deadlines,” said the Environment Canada document. “Media coverage of climate change science, our most high-profile issue, has been reduced by over 80%.”

The leaked document came to light through research done by the Climate Action Network for a scathing report on the laundry list of restrictions on climate researchers since the Harper regime came to power.

According to Dr. David Schindler at the University of Alberta: “It is clear that muzzling under the Harper government is the most oppressive in the history of federal government science. Incredibly, some of the most eminent scientists in Canada have been forbidden to speak publicly on scientific matters where they are recognized as world experts.”

Not apparently content restricting the flow of existing climate information, the Harper government also cancelled funding for a decade-long climate research project that was recognized around the world for its importance.

See also: Canadian government 'hiding truth about climate change', report claims


So there's actually a very big schism between the scientific mainstream and the politics, at least the kind that comes from those most in bed with big oil interests. Ironically however people are being conditioned by the politics to believe the science is nothing but politics.

Hey sorry for the delay, every now and then I need a mental holiday from ATS lol

I was going to say the very same~ Apologies are unnecessary though, as neither of us have any obligation to each other to respond beyond mutual interest. Besides our words arent going anywhere and thus we can respond at our own leisure and preference! Some chess games via mail took years to complete hehe~

Anyway there's a lot of good stuff in your post, so I think I'll work in stages -

Same, unless theres some way to mash all your posts into one 'quote' function!

Although I'm sure certain people here will try to tell you otherwise, believe it or not I'm actually pretty damn cool with dissent. Different or even opposing viewpoints are vital to maintaining some grounded perspective. The only thing I actually have a problem with is the sort of extremist dissent that makes people refuse to so much as re-evaluate their position when faced with opposing facts, reason, evidence, etc.

Not to wave the flag of philosophy around willy nilly, as I can hardly lay claim to any real wisdom (yet), but I would like to think that my entire outlook is premised on non contradiction, be it in thoughts, feelings, words or actions. Thus my uncertain positions are always under constant review. That review, to me, is guided by my principles that I accept to be non contradictory and thus valid, with my foundational axiom being that A=A.

I know you share this basic premise, and thus we can continue, with me offering objections based on the premise that A must always = A. Im not certain, in the case of AGW, that it does.

Thus my goal is not to win, or beat you in our interaction, but instead to learn as much as possible from you, as you intelligence and perspective is obviously advanced. That you are a relative expert compared to me does not automatically convince me, though.

That's when dissent is no longer healthy and simply becomes it's own brand of ideology. And I find myself constantly running into that when discussing the global warming thing unfortunately, especially around here.

Anyone who makes an objective truth statement saying that AGW is totally false, is themselves totally false. The opposite of that position is also necessarily false. Since you an I are *unable* to make a truth statement on the matter one way or the other, our acceptance or denial of it must rely on an element of opinion. It is those concepts... those opinions, that I am compelled to question. The hallmark of an ideologue is one who states his own *opinion* as *truth*.

Gravity and the NAP are *truth*. AGW, to me, fall into the category of *opinion*, even if that opinion is well substantiated and based on underlying truth.

I mean - I don't care what "side" you're on, the fact that there is more than one side to this story though also means there is more than one side that can be corrupted by lies, politics, phony science and especially brainwashing.

I accept that both sides indeed have nefarious interests backing them. But having read the actual text of the Copenhagen Treaty (which was buried deeply yet openly as some nondescript footnote to some random online document) I have to say that I see a massive and premeditated attempt by many of the worlds governments to use AGW as a lever to hoist their authoritarian controls upon basically all of society.

I cant source this now so youll have to take me on good faith, but the original, secret and ultimately rejected Copenhagen Treaty included a flat tax of 2% of GDP tax on 'tier one' nations (first world nations) to be imposed and regulated by non other than the notorious IMF. 2% of GDP is roughly what our country spends on its military, so that would have been no small sum. As much as I detest the 'Harper Government', I give credit where credit is due, and rejecting this framework for global governance is one thing Im glad they achieved.

Yet so many people here don't even just forget that - they refuse to so much as acknowledge it. They become so wrapped up in thinking they have everything already figured out, and invest so much time laughing at the other side for it, that they then reeeeeally can't handle the tables turning and the skeptical shoe on the other foot.

Not to be as presumptuous as to think I can offer you meaningful advice, but I think when you drop the idea that you can change peoples mind using reason and evidence (and how frustrating is it to lay out the facts to someone only to be dismissed?) and instead realize that you and I are islands of rationality cut off and mostly alone in a sea of bigotry and culturally enforced lies, you might live a life freer of forehead against a brick wall frustration.

Most people are unable to speak in the language of reason, as they have never learned to speak it. Expecting superior logic to prevail in an illogical environment is in itself illogical. You cannot expect, as a speaker of English, to convince through argument, a person who speaks in tongues. That you are so shocked by the rarity of my admission of uncertainty on a matter I should be uncertain of if evidence of this.

The problem I see is clearly ego, and it corrupts this debate more than anything else.

Im currently exploring my own ego, which is a fascinating, thrilling and often horrifying journey. What I have discovered (not that it should convince you) is that the ego, or sense of self, is not corrupting inherently, but instead a corrupted ego is, while a healthy and non contradictory ego may not be. A non dissociated ego, imo, may indeed be our natural state of rest. (totally subjective conjecture here.)

So I don't care how far apart we are on the details, the fact that you can simply take a step back and be one of the very few people to acknowledge and say "whoa whoa, I have my opinions - but I may not know everything here" is enough to earn my respect, no matter how much we ultimately agree to disagree.

I feel the same, and I would add that its nice to be appreciated for a quality that I actually appreciate in myself, instead of being some projection fodder for someone elses entrenched bigotry and expectations.

I come to ATS much more to discuss conspiracies than I do science. I find myself having to constantly delve into the science because I see so many people misquoting and misrepresenting it, but trying to correct them is a pretty thankless task unfortunately, and because of that I'd actually rather stay away from it to be honest.

Not to come off as overly presumptuous (which I may often do) but I think you and I share a passion for truth above all, and a kind of slump shouldered sense of duty to deliver our fellows from the dank pit of ignorance. We see the light and are aware of its virtue, and while we may not understand its properties or source, we understand on a fundamental level that there is more to existence than the flickering and ambiguous shadows cast upon the wall that most people accept as the beginning and end of their reality. (to bite a metaphor from Plato.)

If the world were sane(er), and facts and reason were the standard currency of discourse, instead the of anxiety management emotional manipulation that is so the norm of today, you and I would just be normal people and we wouldnt have to take up the monumental task of thrusting our own limited life against the blank darkness of the irrational and savage mass mind. After all, who in their right mind would chose to live a life that often includes ridicule, attack, sabotage and isolation? In the world today, it is almost a rational choice to accept irrationality. But we recognize that no true progress can be made in reality, if one lives in the fantasy land of contradiction and self inflicted stupidity.

So even though I dont agree with your conclusions, (and perhaps im unqualified to make that call) know that I do feel and share your burden of duty - duty to reality, that in todays mad world, often seems like hard time.

But I think there are also plenty of ways to make informed judgments here without even having to consult the science. In many ways the science is actually the biggest minefield for getting to the truth because it is so complicated. You mention there are people out there far better than us at grasping it - but that also makes them far better at spinning it into whatever they want you to think it says.

Totally. On the one hand, perhaps my own confirmation bias is blinding me to the reality that may be AGW, and thus im prone to accepting the arguments presented by the parties that oppose it. On the other, perhaps my logic and intuition are tending towards a more correct opinion, in which case the oppositions arguments to AGW are just reinforcing what is indeed more true.

Maybe the sources I find to have the ring of truth only support my prior assumptions, and thus I overlook the corruption they might also be subject to. These points you have raised are very interesting to me, as Im big on attacking and destroying any incorrect assumptions or assertions I might be overlooking. If I was 99% sure of the falsehood of AGW before this discussion, perhaps im hovering at a healthy 90% now~

So I'd rather discuss the conspiracy in fact. But that discussion has been so thoroughly hijacked by one side that I don't even know how to get most people around here to consider the other, without having them go into some hysterical identity crisis. Again, the ego thing creates a huge barrier.

Im not sure if the ego itself is the core problem here, as the ego is just our own individuated consciousness. For example, you are using your individuated consciousness in this discussion to prove the validity of your claims, as I am using my own ego to dispute you.

Since we concede mutual respect for eachothers 'egos' as valid in our appreciation for the truth, (which, if validated either way, would be done so via our egos) I think your condemnation of your 'self' (and my own) is a little off base. I think we could more specifically say that a corrupted and irrational ego, or self, is our common enemy, and not our egos themselves.

In other words, since you find your own arguments to be true, and your own argument is held by your 'self' or 'ego', you cannot logically say that all problems stem from the ego itself, because if you were to state this with certainty, it would certainly invalidate your own arguments, as your own arguments are put forward by your 'self', or 'ego'.

Now just beyond that necessary clarification, I do believe that most peoples sense of self is indeed corrupt and irrational, with most beyond redemption. I do not see this as an attack on the self, per say, but instead as evidence that the false self is incredibly destructive to everyone.

For a lot of people, considering the possibility that it's actually the skeptics that were lying and making **** up, means also considering the possibility that they were the ones actually being lied to in the end. And from what I've seen around here - these proudly self-professed "skeptics" absolutely CANNOT handle that!

To see and accept the hypocrisy in ones own thoughts and behaviors is probably one of the hardest and thus least attempted lines of self examinations possible. To admit that your most foundational principles are wrong is basically to admit your personality, history, and relationships with others (who accept your hypocritical state) is false and in need of complete overhaul. Imagine the anxiety we all experience in debating someone who we subconsciously know to be right in some abstract and inconsequential argument that we have basically no stake in other than the win, and project that sense of uncertainty onto your whole personality. Most people cannot afford to analyze themselves critically and objectively as possible as such an inventory of ego would inevitably lead to the collapse of the false self. These kind of revelations can literally lead to a full blown mental breakdown, and thus most people we encounter simply cannot go down the path that you and I tread dutifully.

I have a ton of evidence - and by evidence I mean HARD evidence: leaked memos, court documents, paper trails, admissions of guilt - on how far the denial industry has gone to completely manufacture doubt and skepticism over the scientific consensus on global warming.

No doubt that you do, and no doubt that your opponents have similar files 'proving' the falsehood of the evidence you assert to be *hard*. I cannot know which is valid either way, but I wonder if you subject your 'hard evidence' to the same scrutiny you would to evidence that opposes your position?

Not that this proves the point one way or the other, but do you recognize your own potential for bias?

I believe this evidence would make tons of people's heads explode around here. But that's exactly the problem - it will make their heads explode. And I can't figure out a way to get them to put the pieces back together thoughtfully, instead of just shrieking in defensive terror as a result.

Man if you substituted AGW for Fukushima in the above, I might have as well wrote that last paragraph. I feel that if people around me realized what 94% melted fuel at reactor #3 could mean (admitted by TEPCO) potentially, their heads might indeed explode, or maybe even implode as the singular reality of the disaster in Japan percolated in their domes.

But just as you recoil in horror to the truth, (but wont allow fear to block your path to reason) so too does the average person recoil in horror to us. And I say 'us' because its not even the reality of the situation that they must avert, but on a deeper level, I believe, they must recoil to people like 'us' as truth tellers. We, the ones who would shatter their false egos and identities without regard to their house of card-like personalities or culturally enforced and trauma based egos.

Real people frighten the average, paper thin personality wearing person far more than abstractions like climate change and radiation. I think the resistance to reason you encounter is not due to your facts, but more importantly due to your ability to reason itself.

Again, another tangential opinion, but I think it holds true.

So instead I just get lectured constantly on how bad the science is with rebuttals forged by bad (skeptical) science. I have to listen to people repeatedly tell me to "follow the money" when they apparently have no idea that money flows in both directions. I get told about how global warming is nothing but sensationalist alarmism while they make all sorts of sensationalist alarmist claims about email scandals and carbon taxes. It just goes on and on...

I dont think that the term 'alarmist' invalidates an argument on its own at all, if by 'alarmist' we are referring simply to one who raises the alarm in response to a real or perceived threat. If Im in bed and my house is on fire, and a fireman rushes in and jolts me awake, yelling, in alarm, that I have to get out of my house or I will die...I do not think any sane person would accuse that person of being an 'alarmist'. Hell, we install 'alarms' in our own homes to warn us of potential danger, and we dont remove their batteries because we value 'alarmism' when a legitimate threat is present.

If by 'alarmist' we are referring to one who hypes up our fears in order to manipulate us, then the term applies. I think the term only applies to those who would consciously do this, and not to people who may be genuinely alarmed by some misconception but do not seek to actively deceive others based on an imagined threat.

I tend to put most AGWs into the latter camp, and I do not doubt their sincere concern for the health of our biosphere. Politicians, on the other hand, especially high level ones, I place firmly into the alarmist camp, especially after reading most of the near hidden proposed Copenhagen Treaty.

The catastrophe at Fukushima only underscores my skepticism, as if they health and wellbeing of the planet Earth and its inhabitants were actually the priority of the elites, the gangs, err i mean governments of the world would be pulling out all the stops in order to solve this immediate and deadly ongoing problem.

Tell ya what, lets focus on the radiation spewing volcano that is Fuku first, and when thats dealt with lets tackle AGW in a reasonable way, if necessary.

I am Canadian too, so I hear ya. This is the dangling thread I would suggest you pull on more if you want to explore some of my claims on why there is actually a conspiracy to deny anthropogenic global warming. It's more than just oil money, it involves the complete control of people and resources. Everyone seems to think carbon taxes are just another means to control and enslave us, but they completely forget those taxes are designed to get us off carbon - i.e. the tool that is ALREADY used to control and enslave us.

Firstly, I know that your aware of Enrons crucial role in developing the ridiculous cap and trade madness (as was Al Gore of Blood and Gore associates) and Im sure you havent missed BPs heavy investment in the direction of such regulation. I know that if you followed Copenhagen closely, and read some of the draft treaty, you know that it separated nations into 'tiers' and would have forced the involuntary redistribution of huge amounts of wealth from 'tier 1' nations (like Canada) to lower tiered nations in the name of climate change mitigation. This process was of course to be administered by our good friends at the IMF, who would have, in effect, become the global regulatory and taxation body above the nation states, and would have been given the power to regulate industry and levy taxes against any signatory country.

Correct me if Im wrong, as its been a while (had the text saved to disk, since been wiped) but one of the initial measures proposed was a flat GDP tax on tier 1 nations of 2%! (as I stated earlier.) Again repeating, but 2% is roughly the GDP committed to our immoral and imperial canadian military. Even the income tax was initially less than 1% and applied to only limited parties, and look at its % now, a century later.

So since I recognize and accept the Taxation = Force argument, (which I accept with the same certainty that I accept the theory of gravity ie 100%, sans opinion) I simply cannot accept our rulers solutions, no matter how well intentioned or science based. Redistributing wealth and industry from rich to poor nations must result in more CO2 emisions and not less, as 3rd world (tier 4 I believe) nations have zero controls on emissions, while we in the west actually have the surplus capital to develop and apply anti pollution measures, while developing nations do not. (see china)

If you don't use fossil fuels then you aren't dependent on "them" AND you don't pay carbon taxes.

In our modern world, only the most primitive and secluded savages are not in some way dependent on fossil fuels. The lives of billions of humans are made possible and sustained by the current energy paradigm that unfortunately runs on oil in one way or another. Be it the plastics that you and I are using right now that allows the information age, or the fertilizers used in modern agriculture, (much to our detriment I know) or the trucks that deliver food to our grocery stores, ect ect ect. Even on a personal level, my trade demands that I own a truck in order to provide the shelter that we all take for granted. (and rightly so, what a great advancement in civilization it is to not have to live in a cave or hut.)

Even if I forgo driving altogether due to carbon taxation, I would only be doing so in order to avoid said taxation, and thus I still must pay the crippling price of no mobility, which would end my careers effectively. All the food I eat must be brought to me via trucks and shipping, and their every increasing price is in part due to carbon taxation on fuel. In short, there is no way for me to avoid the consequences of carbon taxation if I am to live a relatively normal life among people, whom I depend on for my survival.

Meanwhile our entire economy is a giant scam as is, because it's designed to keep everyone chained to, and obsessed with, the sort of material devices that foster mindless little wage slaves devoted to obtaining them. The global warming problem, if it's real, means restructuring our collective priorities (and thus our whole economy) in a way that suits the best interests of the planet before the interests of the people exploiting it for personal profit. Obviously some of them recognize that, and have a HUGE problem with it.

If you recognize our economy is a giant scam, and you realize our economies are largely run and directed in a quasi fascistic/socialist/communist model, (our government arguably practices 9/10 of the planks of the communist manifesto, the UKs economy is more controlled and regulated than Chinas, and a monopolized currency system is enforced upon us violently by the government of almost all nations on Earth, ect ect) how do you find is plausible that the very source of our fraked up system is who will save us from it?

I may be out of my depth in discussing the heat retention properties of CO2 and the like, but I do have some considerable time logged in analyzing the root problems in society. So in the name of accuracy, I simply must call you on your assertion that "... restructuring our collective priorities (and thus our whole economy) in a way that suits the best interests of the planet before the interests of the people exploiting it for personal profit."

This statement is so laden with what I consider (with good reason) to be wrongheaded and more than a little naive (not meant condescendingly) assumptions that I feel I must break it down point by point.

1) "restructuring" implies a global body with the power to 'restructure'.
2) "collective priorities" assumes that there is such a valid concept that is both universal (collective) and practical for all. (but no such priorities exist, as if they did, we would not disagree on the matter.) The fact that I oppose your standards of 'collective priorities' invalidates both the collective-ness and its implied priority.

...unless your standard of 'collective priorities' is determined by the 'restructure rs'. If this is the case, those in charge of restructuring must necessarily initiate force against me, and you.

3) "(and thus our whole economy)" Review the megadeath of the 20th century for countless examples of centralized attempts at 'restructuring' economies. Also, again, requires the initiation of violence.
4) " in a way that suits the best interests of the planet before the interests of the people exploiting it for personal profit."

I think it would be helpful to drop the idea that we would act in any way for the planet itself, and not act to sustain our own biospehere. The planet is a rock devoid of consciousness; it cares not if we succeed in sustaining ourselves, or wipe our civilization out via nuclear war. The Earth will still be here regardless of our actions.

If you concede that humans are profit driven machines of selfishness, you must logically apply that standard to all humans, and this *must* include the gang who would gain the ultimate power over human affairs - the power to regulate our production. (aka our means of survival.) Thus if humans, as you say, are greedy and short sighted beings, the *very last* thing we should do it empower a small group of them with the sanction to regulate at will, as these greedy, 'profit' (power is the ultimate profit) seeking humans will inevitably use their near infinite power to realize their greedy, self serving ends. Ex. every government in history.

A super, global government given the power of unlimited force and the arbitrary rule of might over any producers would necessarily (necessarily by your definition of humans as greedy sociopaths) implode in a super nova of corruption, greed and violence. (as is the nature of violent power, see: lord of the rings) Such an implosion would result in far more catastrophic results than even AGW might generate, imo.

Clean coal is a total farce if you ask me. It's not any different than regular coal, it mainly just refers to capturing the resultant carbon emissions and trying to sequester them in the Earth (quite literally sweeping everything under the rug!) which has all sorts of pitfalls and environmental problems of it's own.

As Im not sure how to save the world, Im not sure which energy solution is most viable for our civilization. Clean coal, again from what I understand, uses scrubbers that filter the *real* toxins from entering the environment - pollution like mercury, sulfur and the like. What they do emit, Ive read, is (reduced) CO2 and water vapor.

So if you look at clean coal (of which we have enough of to power our civ for a century, and is readily available for extraction, no new tech is needed as weve been at it for hundreds of years) from the perspective of AGW, it would indeed not be viable. If CO2 is shown to be harmless, or even beneficial, clean coal instantly would become the #1 short/medium term solution to our energy needs, until we develop (or are allowed to develop) some sort of near limitless clean energy source. (which may indeed already exist, if Tesla was right. Speculation here...)

It's also very expensive itself, so why spend that money trying to sweep the problem under the rug when you can just use it to eliminate it altogether right?

The elimination of CO2 emissions to the levels AGWers demand would basically require us to shut down our modern industrial and informational society. Thats why this issue is so crucial.

Even if the worst case the AGWers propose were to manifest, (minus that whole end of the world methane eruption deal, that wouldnt be good) I still think adaptation to adverse climes using ever advancing tech and survival strategies to mitigate the consequences and even capitalize on the new climate would be better than hitting the reset button and returning to the stone age. Id rather die in a flood I had a reasonable chance to escape than an infection caused by a broken ankle that society no longer had the capacity to cure.

Sounds like an extreme example, but if you look at the number of times humans have discovered the cure for scurvy, only to lose it again for centuries, youll know why I see the dismantling and subjugation of civilization in the name of AGW as a potential dire threat.

When I was referring to the dangers of coal mining I meant both the human cost and the environmental. I appreciate the fact that you know some coal miners personally, and thus have some direct insight there, but I would also imagine they are telling you (or being told themselves) the things that help them keep their jobs, not what's necessarily best for the environment.

While I dont want to see any person suffer, I do not see that those who willingly place themselves in danger as in need of my concern. Since they are coal miners, or rig workers, or fishermen by choice, I think we must accept their dignified free will choices and not advocate our own personal standards of safety for them. The trade Im involved with has one of the higher injury (and catastrophic injury) rates compared to most other trades, but since Ive chosen to accept the danger of my own free will, I certainly would not expect any outcry over the injustice of my trade being subjected to unnecessary dangers from my evil, profit seeking bosses, or the evil of society as a whole, in a way, forcing me to do what i do. (as we might project on to coal miners)

In a less garbled way compared to the above, I would say that coal miners accept the risks associated with their profession and are paid accordingly. Thus I dont think the saftey of the worker (which is ever improving with tech) is of any moral concern.

So if the dispute is not the safety of workers, but is instead the environmental impact associated with coal mining. (which im sure has some effect) If this is a case, coal mining should probably be far, far down your list in terms of what mining operations to oppose. (Nickle and Uranium come to mind...)

So if your opposition to coal mining is primarily based on your opposition to invasive and destructive mining practices, and not CO2 emissions, you indeed have your work cut out for you as, from what I understand, coal is one of the lesser mining practices in terms of impact. I would think that you might even favor coal in the cases that it could replace the energy extracted from the ever expanding moon-scape that is the tar sands.

I can't imagine anyone looking at current mountain top removal practices: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d490f696342.jpg[/atsimg]

Not good Im sure, but pan the camera back a bit and witness a near endless forest and wild terrain.

Or coal ash spills like this: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4104951a598c.jpg[/atsimg] And declaring it unintrusive.

Biodegradable carbon stuff seems a whole lot less threatening to be than the other current, Statist enabled alternative - Nuclear. We know that oil spills in huge volumes into the ocean naturally all the time, and where it vents even hosts hydrocarbon based life forms and such.

Nuclear, on the other hand, like that which is being released by fukushima daily, in massive amounts, kills all living things. Perhaps if the AGW and Nuke lobbies were not so dominant in international skullduggery, err, i mean affairs, a relatively simple and far less dangerous solution could be explored in the form of clean coal.

This potentially viable solution to our energy needs is totally stonewalled by the agents of the state who enforce CO2 regulations that are prohibitive of any mass application of clean coal, and many other alternatives Im sure. And yet China, a potential receiver of stolen funds under Copenhagen, builds 3 dirty coal plants per week, but would not have been subject to any restrictions under the draft treaty.

Tangent there for sure, but I think its important to consider all the political dynamics that of course have interplay with the science.

And there's also the human impact as well of course. People can say it's getting safer, but it's still subject to the same corruptions as everything else:

Again, I dont see danger to voluntary workers as a factor in determining which energy source our civilization should run on. If your concern is truly with the workers primarily, you should focus more of you opposition on king crab fishermen and ice road truckers.

So trying to rationalize all this by comparing it to something like oil is basically like saying Stalin wasn't such a bad dude next to Hitler

Stalin had a *waaaay* higher body count..but oooo, I digress! I wouldnt want to detrail this thread for a second time~

Surly oil has its drawbacks, and while its use is largely responsible for pulling us as a species out of day to day survival mode, and while you and i *both* owe our very existence to its plentiful supply, and while if oil suddenly dried up tomorrow, most of us would die in screaming cannibalistic mindlessness, it is certainly time to move on to bigger and better (and cleaner) modes of energy.

Taxing CO2 will only stand in the way of a more sustainable future, as it will further centralize power in the hands of an increasingly corrupt autocratic elite, who will increasingly use its power over all things to further its own dark ambitions and strengthen its chilling embrace, until the last dying embers of a once free-ish humanity is choked out of existence by the skeletal, cold clutches of despotism, tyranny and its consequential destruction.

And it's not like wind and solar are perfect either of course - they still require resources and materials to build and set up themselves, you have to be careful where you place them - but when you weigh all the pros and cons out there, I think it's ultimately kind of a no-brainer. This cartoon says it pretty well:

Agreed. So lets get out of the way of the millions of forward thinking problem solvers who propose non centralized energy solutions everyday. Let us give up the fantasy that a wise and benevolent class of philosopher kings can rule each of our lives, without being corrupted by the addiction of power. Lets stop asking for solutions from corrupt and vile politicians who we wouldnt even eat dinner with, but somehow we entrust our future to.

Let us give up the delusion that one more tax, one more law, or one more regulation will somehow force humanity to become virtuous.

reply to post by Neo_Serf


Well, looks like I really outdid myself on disappearing from the conversation this time. Unfortunately good dialogue requires time and effort to match, and although I assure you the effort's still there, time is a resource I'm unfortunately really lacking these days.

But I did manage to find some this long weekend (hooray for Nationalism!), so hopefully this response is still better late than never.

So without further adieu,


I hafta touch on one thing here and then move straight to the crux of the whole issue, because I think there's some areas where we're very much on the same page (the economy being a scam) but differ on the reasons why. That's absolutely central to this conversation, so I really want to focus on that. Just need to address this beforehand -

Firstly, I know that your aware of Enrons crucial role in developing the ridiculous cap and trade madness (as was Al Gore of Blood and Gore associates) and Im sure you havent missed BPs heavy investment in the direction of such regulation.

Enron did not "develop" cap and trade (nor did Al Gore). The concept of cap and trade was first proposed as early as the 1960's, when Gore was a teenager and well before Enron even existed. What companies like Enron did was simply jump on the emissions trading bandwagon when they saw there was loads of profit that could be made there. That's the simultaneous attraction and pitfall of cap and trade - it is specifically designed as a market-based solution to appease all these powerful profit-seeking industries who kick and scream any time someone even mentions government regulation otherwise.


So now - in light of that I'm going to say something that may come as a complete shock. Ready?

*ahem*

I believe Cap and Trade is a scam.



That's right. Bookmark it. Take a picture. Quote me all you like.

In fact I have already said this on here numerous times, but nobody seems to notice because they're still too keen on reminding me how mesmerized I am by Al Gore and his magic beans or something...

The thing is cap and trade in theory is actually pretty smart, but in reality it leaves too many loopholes that can be exploited. And exploiting/profiting off loopholes is what companies like Enron do best.

But there are some very important points about cap and trade and it's relationship to global warming that are either completely misunderstood, or conveniently ignored, by most AGW "skeptics":


#1 Cap and trade is a (proposed) solution to global warming. One of many. It is not the solution to global warming. The two are NOT sewn together and cap and trade was not some scheme designed exclusively for global warming, or the carbon market. It was actually implemented previously in 1990 to deal with sulfur dioxide emissions and acid rain. And it's apparent success in that arena is what propelled it to the short list of candidates for carbon eradication. However, as I will show you below, there are in fact numerous prominent "warmists" out there who are vehemently against it.

#2 Cap and trade is a totally separate and different thing from a carbon tax.

#3 Although C&T requires government involvement (to set the cap), again - it is actually a market-based approach (e.g. the trade part). And this is precisely what makes it a scam. It is a very naive compromise between government oversight and the assumption that profit-hungry industries will play fairly or ethically when it comes time to cut the carbon pie.

This is also why you will see some of these free-market stooge lobbyists simultaneously support cap and trade, while also using it to allude to the idea that global warming must be a hoax. They are just hedging their bets and playing both sides. They have enough foresight to know that, because global warming is real, something will eventually have to be done about it. So they get behind the solution that they can exploit the most. But meanwhile, because they know that solution is the most exploitable, they also know they can use it as their go-to talking point for why we shouldn't be doing anything at all (at least for as long as possible).

It's pretty twisted - but really, would you expect anything less from these sort of opportunist hacks?


But as I mentioned above, there are very prominent AGW activists out there who are resoundingly against cap and trade.

The best example by far is Dr. James Hansen. He is routinely skewered by deniers as Al Gore's first officer, and painted as the scientific Godfather behind this whole AGW operation - yet here is an op-ed piece he wrote for the NY Times basically tearing cap and trade a new one.

I highly recommend you read it and pay attention to his "fee and dividend" solution - and let me know where the scam is in taxing huge carbon emitting industries, but then giving that money back directly to the public so they can choose to spend it on better alternatives

Also here is another great video on the shortcomings of cap and trade done by Annie Leonard from The Story of Stuff project.



I am going to come back to this, as The Story of Stuff really hammers home what I want to talk about here:

Namely how our entire economy is a huge, corrupt, recklessly unsustainable Ponzi scheme - and how global warming is precisely the "problem" that will in fact liberate us from all this.

That is, provided we all learn to attack this issue with logic, reason, common sense and courage - not fear, denial, apathy and ignorance.

Ok, so item #1:

Our current economic system is a big fat scam.

Why?

It has much less to do with subjugating the masses through things like overbearing government and taxes than it does with the more subtle elements lurking behind the curtain. The oppression & taxes method took a big kick to the groin around the late 18th century when the masses began to become educated and organized enough to realize they were getting screwed by the elites AND that they could actually do something about it, if they all just managed to get themselves on the same page.

From this point on TPTB also understood there was a limit to how far they could push that envelope. Their power and wealth is built right off our backs, so the trick is finding an optimal balance between squeezing and extorting the maximum amount of productive and devoted "trickle up" service from the people, while being careful not to stir them into any sort of organized resistance or dissent. It's a tricky proposition - keeping all the worker bees as caffeinated as possible, while making sure they also remain fast asleep.

That's why today it's much more about fostering and exploiting a system where people are falsely conditioned to believe they are free, when really they're just mindless wage slaves being kept as dumbed down, obedient, and apathetic as can be.

Now this may seem "obvious" to the people who call themselves conspiracy theorists, but most of them really, really don't get it. At all. To understand the bigger picture (aka the real story), it's absolutely critical to look at everything in the context of the entire global economy, and not just some short sighted rant about how the government is trying to control everyone.

Because the government is a part of this scam too of course, but that comes mainly from the fact it's mostly a facade to make people think they have a choice, when really the government itself is governed by the big business interests and lobbyists that control it in the first place.

That's why trying to just pin everything on our politicians is a pointless exercise anyway, because the whole thing is nothing but a puppet show in the first place. The biggest function I'd say the government even serves in fact is not as an instrument of oppression, but as a scapegoat for it. It's a convenient tool for the real powers behind the curtain to not only keep themselves out of the spotlight, but to appease the worker bees every time they start to stir.

Because this way, whenever the sheeple are too fed up with the system, instead of ever focusing their anger on the actual core culprits of that system, they merely exercise their right to vote out the old puppets and replace them with the new ones, all the while waving flags and congratulating each other on their supposed "freedom" again.

Now once more, this may all seem obvious, but my point is to not get so utterly fixated on the government trying to control you that you end up getting the bigger conspiracy totally backwards as a result. Do not lose sight of how much it is big business that in fact already controls you.

Because remember, this is "the free West" - where the illusion of freedom is much more the scam than the direct oppression of it. My family originally came from a communist country, and as bad as that turned out - at least everyone there knew how corrupt it all was. The whole thing was right in everybody's face. So ultimately - look at what happened as a result - the entire iron curtain collapsed.

And again, same thing happened before in the 1700's when people got fed up with too many BS taxes. That's why if you're an astute "power that be", you've probably learned by now that following the George Orwell model for control of the masses is not exactly as great as it looks on paper. What works much better these days, because it works much more subversively, is the Aldous Huxley blueprint.


...
Now this is all extremely relevant to the global warming debate, particularly when everyone likes to preach the whole "follow the money" meme without ever stopping to consider how much money actually flows in the other direction. To think it must all be a scam because it involves taxes and regulations is pretty myopic considering how often in politics the underlying agenda actually ends up being the total opposite of this - i.e. the rich finding loopholes to give themselves tax breaks, big polluters lobbying their way around environmental regulations (etc).

So don't lose sight of this crucial fact, because this is a very very VERRRY important viewpoint to the whole global warming "conspiracy" that simply gets ignored by most conspiracy theorists, either accidentally (by distracted skeptics) or purposely (by full blown deniers).

The less ideological observers seem to at least recognize that fossil fuel companies have their dirty fingerprints all over the skeptical side of the issue, but that's only the tip of the iceberg - because the whole conspiracy actually runs MUCH deeper than this.

It involves our entire economy - our values, our freedoms, and our way of life - and specifically how much these things have all been hijacked by elitist factions that have carefully and methodically transformed them into the very instruments of our own enslavement.


...
So to understand this better, you need to really analyze what it is about our economy that makes the whole thing such a big scam:

First off - what even is an economy? Look at it on a primal level. Let's say a bunch of us got stuck on a deserted island. To survive we wouldn't each just go our separate ways and hunt our own food, gather our own firewood, build our own shelters, etc - because this would be a horribly inefficient way to survive, and certainly no way to thrive.

Instead we would form a society and divvy up the tasks to make life as convenient and productive as possible on the whole. The bigger our society got the more complex the economics of it would become, but the underlying purpose, at least in the ideal, would stay the same - to manage ourselves and our resources as efficiently and effectively as possible. The more everyone contributed to this in a constructive way, the more the overall standard of living would improve for everyone. That is a healthy economy.

Now on that deserted island you wouldn't give anyone a job, say - building a fire so they could use it to boil drinking water, just so they could then use that drinking water only to put the fire out, right? Yet look at our current system and consider how impractical and utterly useless so much of it is. There are people out there who do these sort of socially pointless "jobs" everyday, because it gives someone else a reason to sell them the firewood and the water.

Take the defense industry and the military industrial complex for instance. These guys are a perfect example for how much our economy is exploited on ALL levels, since they happen to be a convenient marriage between government organizations and private contractors.

The MIC initiate pointless wars just so they have a reason to build more bombs, because it's good for business. Then they use those bombs to blow things up just so they have an excuse to go in and rebuild them, because it's good for business. On a pragmatic level it's of course absurd to think building stuff so you can use it to blow other stuff up, so you can then rebuild both, is in any way productive or especially "economical" - yet here we have a so-called industry that's *worth* how many billions of dollars?

(And all the above doesn't even factor in the part where it gives them a convenient excuse to go in and "secure" other people's oil right?)

But again, it's not just the government and military - because think about how much the "free market" gets in on the action too. Corporations waste so much transport energy manufacturing goods overseas because they save money exploiting foreign workers. Pharmaceutical companies suppress single dose cures for diseases so they can instead sell habit forming medications that hook patients in for life. Internet security firms create viruses that allow them to sell more anti-virus software. The list just goes on and on...

The entire economy has been gradually culled over the last few centuries (but especially in the last few decades) into something that is much less about genuine freedom, productivity, innovation, and growth than it is about simply hussling and exploiting each other at any cost necessary to make that extra buck.

It is a scam in every sense of the word.

And TPTB LOVE it like this because they already have the most power and resources and thus ability to exploit and oppress everyone stuck in this game simply trying to survive.

Yet most people don't even bother noticing that because they are too busy being the superficial, self-involved, blissfully ignorant sheep our slavedrivers need us to be to make it all work. It's the Huxley model in all it's glory. Meanwhile, these days everyone is basically farmed into this system and bred to believe it's the only way "freedom" can work.

So they are conditioned to never ever question it. And if they do, others are conditioned to immediately call them out as socialists or wacko environmentalists or "enemies of freedom" or whatever other pejorative nonsense has been stamped into the play-doh they call for brains.

Incidentally that's where Orwell still fits into the picture as well. Because fear is also used as a tool for controlling people too of course. But think about what kind of fear is most often used: terrorism, xenophobia, partisan politics, etc.

It's always the kind of fear that places the blame on some other (outside) entity, that then usually requires "their" protection from. It's also the kind of fear devised to keep people as mindlessly divided from each other as possible - to keep them from all getting on that same page.

It's never the kind of fear that places the blame (and thus the responsibility) on ourselves - and so ultimately requires our own protection from.

It's never the kind of fear that encourages everyone to conquer it by coming together. To realize how much potential we have in our own hands, if we would just work with each other instead of against each other for the greater good.

This is the sort of self-empowerment that TPTB look to avoid at all costs, not promote. So just keep that in your back pocket when considering this idea that global warming is apparently all about fear and alarmism and control (I'll come back to this a little later).

Until then, we need to consider item #2:

Exactly where the global warming problem fits into this scam.

So to recap - here we have an economy that's much more about generating FAKE economic growth than it is about doing anything useful or meaningful to justify that growth (thus actually raising the standard of living).

This totally unsustainable bubble has come into existence because it has been found particularly exploitable by the banksters, the MIC, the corporatists, the various elitist opportunists who keep siphoning more and more of that supposed burgeoning wealth directly into their pockets instead of back into a viably balanced and accountable system.

Meanwhile everyone else seems to just drown deeper and deeper in debt.

This is the scam.

And the irony of the whole situation is that the way it works today - it is our own so-called freedoms that are particularly used against us. Because as long as everyone's personal priorities are so narrowly focused on their own individual greed, their social status, materialism, keeping up with the Joneses, whatever - it in fact gets everyone working that much harder for "the man", while naively thinking they're working for themselves.

But the important point is - the money that goes into TPTB's hands - that rolls in directly from the profit margins associated with our consumption, and not from any subsequent taxes.

This isn't 1775. Tax revenue doesn't just go to the King of England. It goes into social programs and public infrastructure. I mean if everything was a scam just because it involved taxes, then I guess that means public education and firefighting are a hoax too right?

And even if the taxes themselves were being hijacked somehow by the elites - why would anyone take this risk of robbing the public so out in the open, when they've already mastered doing it behind their backs soooo much better?


So now - here's where AGW really comes into the picture:

You have to look at it macroscopically. TPTB understand that to generate as much extractable wealth out of the system as they can, they need all the little wage slaves first and foremost doing as much as they can. This means dangling the freedom carrot to get everyone producing, consuming and especially wasting as much as possible. Even if it's actually totally inefficient or counter-productive, every one of these "economic activities" has a revenue attached to it that gets funneled up the food chain to the top of the pyramid - so obviously the MORE, the better it is for them.

Now - I think this is a great time to introduce the Story of Stuff video I mentioned earlier:



I would humbly ask that you take the time to watch it before reading any further, because it really sets the table for everything I'm getting at.

Don't worry - I'll wait...



...
OK done? Cool.

So now consider the specific factors that make this whole system such an exploitable, profitable Ponzi scheme in the first place:

Overconsumption. Materialism. Gross overindulgent and useless excess.

Look at planned obsolescence for example - it is the consumer equivalent of blowing stuff up just so you can rebuild it philosophy.

This is where the real money is.

That's why focusing so much on taxes is really short sighted in the bigger picture, especially when it comes to carbon taxes. Because the very principle of carbon taxes goes diametrically against the actual scam that's already firmly in place (and working like a charm). The whole point of carbon taxes is to get people to use less of the very things that generate all that income in the first place, so how are TPTB supposed to get more money out of it in the end?


But ok you say, it's not just about money - it's really all about control, right?


Well again, think about how TPTB already control you. Remember - do not make the mistake of forgetting big business' place in all this because they're the ones who really control the government anyway.

These people control you by controlling the things you depend on. So obviously that lies in the centralized control and distribution of finite resources - especially fossil fuels, and ESPECIALLY oil - because it is the absolute driving force of our entire bull# economy.


So now just humour me for a minute and consider that the anthropogenic warming problem is indeed very real. Forget all the cap and trade rhetoric for a second and just think about what this actually means pragmatically:


It means we need to first and foremost curtail our overall carbon consumption. You equated this before with "going back to the stone age", which I'm glad you brought up because this is the exact sort of wording I find coming from the very people I'm trying to shine the conspiracy light on.

First off, "go back to the stone age"

So yeah, in closing I just wanna say:

Look beyond the BS politics and ask yourself - considering how much of a mainstream and truly global issue global warming is - why in the world would the supposed scammers want to champion this sort of dangerously responsible thinking amongst their delicately brainwashed flock of sheeple?

Everything they do is dependent on staying away from this potential minefield of self-awareness.

Furthermore if it's all just a big hoax - why would they engineer something that throws their crucial cash cow of mindless overconsumption and waste right under the bus to make it run? It just doesn't make any sense.

So - back on the stone age comment for a sec - I would ask that you really reconsider where you got that idea from, who put those precise words in your head, and what their motivations might be. Because when you look at this whole issue from a much more lucid and practical perspective, tell me, does it really sound like reducing our carbon footprint is going to first and foremost destroy "our" economy, or theirs?



This is exactly why I keep trying to expose people here to the point that the REAL conspiracy in global warming is to deny it, derail it and exploit it, but absolutely not to promote it.

Because all this sheds very critical and unflattering light on the much BIGGER conspiracy. The one that TPTB do everything they can to keep out of the crosshairs, and the one that even most conspiracy theorists seem to lose themselves in - the conspiracy that is our whole. frickin. fake. economy.


So with that in mind please take a deeper look at all the people telling you it's a big bad hoax. Ask yourself are these people really fighting for your freedom, or are they in fact just trying to keep you asleep from what's really going on.

Look at how many of them are tied not just to Big Oil, but to these BS right-wing "free-market" think tanks. Google organizations like The Heartland Institute or the Competetive Enterprise Institute, and see how involved they are in denouncing global warming. Look up what Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck, or FOX News' views are on all this.

These people all actively deny global warming because they are obvious shills for the total sham of an economic system we currently live in, and global warming represents a massive threat to their scam.

This is also exactly why puppets like Stephen Harper and the neocons in the Bush administration have been so active in downplaying and denying the whole thing as well.



...
And bear in mind none of that means everyone on the "pro" side is automatically a good guy either of course. There are certain to be opportunists and scammers on both sides of the fence.


But the fundamental question here still needs to be whether the problem itself is real. Because if it's a hoax and they're using it to screw us - then yeah, ok we're getting screwed. But if it's real and they're using it to screw us - then holy crap we're getting really REALLY screwed.


So in light of that, and since you're clearly big on commendable things like logic and philosophy (instead of political beliefs and ideology like most "skeptics" around here), please consider the whole AGW problem in the context of these questions:


- Is it all just a scare tactic to get everyone to surrender their (delusional, non-existant) freedoms and submit further to the system, or is it actually the long overdue collective kick in the ass most of us need to stop being the mindless consumerist zombies that feed the beast in the first place?

- Is it a giant ruse designed to destroy our economy, or is it actually the spotlight that exposes just how much of a hijacked, unsustainable Ponzi scheme our fake economy actually is?

- Is global warming a means to control us through some totally outlandish paranoid vision of the New World Order, or is it actually the rallying tool that allows us to dismantle the devices that (literally) fuel the completely corrupt Old World Order?

- Is dealing with it (properly) going to send us all back to the stone age, or will it actually force us to usher in a new age of sustainability and renewable energy - i.e. an entirely new economic paradigm built around efficiency over waste, abundance over manufactured scarcity, social awareness over greed, personal responsibility over apathy, and so on...


Consider all that and then ask yourself - does all this sound like "TPTB" really have much more to gain by making up and promoting a global warming hoax, or much less to lose by denying and derailing the global warming reality?


...
I think anyone who actually looks at this problem on any level deeper than the superficial, tinfoil hyperbole associated with "taxes and control" can see for themselves that nothing about the so-called global warming hoax even adds up.

But if you look at it from the perspective of the global warming reality - a reality that is backed up by 200 years of solid science. A reality that these days everyone and their monkey seems to at least acknowledge is indeed happening (i.e. man made or not). And a reality that is clearly being both simultaneously covered up by right wing denialists (the establishment) AND exploited by more progressive opportunists (cap and trade) - you will see ALL the pieces start to fit, not just the selectively easy, supposedly "obvious" ones.

And remember - none of this changes the fact that you still have every right to be cynical and skeptical of what our governments plan to do to fix this mess. Believe me - I am too. But that doesn't change the fact that the problem itself is still very real. TPTB have a much more notorious history of exploiting real issues than they do fake ones anyway.

That's why the only real solution to this problem lies in all of us finally pulling our heads out of our own butts and using this crucial issue to not only help save the planet, but to save ourselves from "them". The real solutions to global warming completely dovetail with the real solutions to freeing ourselves from the crooked tentacles of TPTB.



So once again - this is precisely why I come to a place like ATS to vouch for the global warming thing.

It has nothing to do with me trying to desperately defend my crumbling environmentalist ideals. It has everything to do with me, as a fellow conspiracy theorist, trying to wake people around here up to what's really going on.

But it seems 99% of ATS these days is too consumed by their tinfoil circle jerk, or their partisan politics to ever figure any of it out. They love to bitch and moan about how much TPTB control their lives, but they fail to realize how much the onus is still on us to actually fix that.

TPTB might be the ones who have engineered this scam, but we're the ones who enable it. The good news is that means the power also lies in our hands, not theirs, to change things. But we need to educate and motivate each other to make it happen.

Simply sitting around complaining about stuff on the internet isn't going to accomplish a damn thing. What's even worse is laughing and chastising those who actually are trying to do something about it. All this is going to do is encourage more of the useless, self-involved, ignorant apathy that keeps everyone trapped in their cages in the first place.

The real solutions lie in all of us changing OUR ways. To be the change we want to see in the world, not to just demand it while we do nothing to convince anyone else it's actually worth fighting for.

So I feel that here we have this golden opportunity:

- To use a powerful, mainstream, and yes - very real - problem like global warming as the platform to get others to stop feeding and funding the beast as well.

- To actually look like socially conscious and concerned citizens instead of just crazy conspiracy theorists while doing it.

And yet what do we do with this opportunity?

We piss it all away so we can go back to being the exact same lazy, sheltered sloths as everyone else. We just use our cynicism as an excuse to justify all that, and then pretend to call it "skepticism" so we can feel smarter than the rest of the sheep - while we chew away on the exact same cud.

Or in this particular case – all the abundant, easy-to-swallow astroturf that's been left lying around especially for us "conspiracy theorists".