Prominent Scientists Call for Social Engineering by Forcing People to Accept their Environmental Pol

Originally posted by rickymouse
...
Why not spend your time at a bbq at the local beach than sitting at an airport and in a jet to spend time with people you may never see again. I liked flying in a jet, I learned it was fun in one trip, it got boring after that. Why not support your community instead of exporting your money to a distant community or country. Take care of your own by supporting your own.

edit on 23-2-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

Why do people have to do what you think they should be doing?... People like you tread in very dangerous grounds because your point of view is to force unto others what you want them to do, this leads to dictatorships, and don't think that because you agree with the elites now in somethings that they will spare you...the time will come when you will also be forced to do what they want you to do against your wishes.

BTW, claiming that because the elites have some power now is no excuse to give them more power to control people, even when you think "it's for a good cause"...

All dictatorships started "under a good cause".

Hitler rose to power to help improve Germany, and in many ways it did, but it took away individual rights and the mayority exploited, harrassed, tortured and even murdered minorities who had a difference of opinion, and a different way of life than the mayority of the Germans...

The same thing happened to other leftwing dictatorships which ALL OF THEM started out "to force people to do what supposedly was good for all".

Originally posted by jonnywhite

You may be right in some way. No doubt there're things we don't know. Scientists get hot headed sometimes. However, did you know that the last time our planet had similar Co2 levels was millions of years ago? A recent study says 15 million years ago. Back then sea levels were 100 feet higher and there was little ice on Antarctica and temperatures were several degrees higher.
...
Thing is, anytime we change the Co2 level as rapidly as we have, we're taking on a risk. We're thrusting Co2 levels to a level they were at millions of years ago and don't expect consequences? How can there be no consequences? This is an experiment, whether you want to admit it or not.

What's happening right now is an experiment. There're so many things we're changing. In the end, you may be right that more Co2 will make plants stronger, but as far as I'm concerned, you may be wrong. And there might be many things you're skipping past that will spell doom for this world. I'm sorry, I do not have the same level of confidence that you do in our ambitions on this planet.
...

Hundreds of experiments show that more atmospheric CO2 is benefitial to all plants. Not to mention that humans, and animals can live with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than exist now.

Did you know that if you are indoors right now you are inhaling levels of co2 at 1,000ppm or higher? Are you dead?...

Are your pets, or the pets of people living inside their houses with ACs, or their heaters on dead because atmospheric CO2 is at 1,000ppm or more?...

Why is it that now that levels of atmospheric CO2 on Earth's atmosphere are between 380ppm-390ppm we are being told "the world is going to end" when daily billions of people live indoors with pets with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 and they are not dead and a third arm or eye is not growing in their forehead?...

reply to post by rickymouse


BTW, did you not read the fact that is a lot more than just a carbon tax, which is bad enough, that they want to enforce?...

They want to control how many kids you can have, how you can live, where you can live...

They want to control every aspect of people's lives.

BTW, you do know that there are people who to this day swear they know Elvis is alive and they have seen him?

Does it mean it must be true because tens of thousands of people claim so?

Well, if we don't control our own polluting there are people out there that have the power and resources to control our actions. People can't see that it is the quantity of people doing these things that causes the problem. When just the elite were doing this the problem was not a quarter as bad.

The reasoning behind this cannot be compared to Hitlers actions. You have no concept of how Hitler really was.

The carbon at ground levels is not a problem, the CO2 in the atmosphere is the problem. Make big parks full of trees near the cities and they will tie up the carbon. Evidently you haven't done much open minded research on this. I know that I will never convince someone who is set in their ways to listen to reasoning that challenges their beliefs.

I would humbly suggest that the thread title, and direction discussion has proceeded in, is somewhat at odds with the actual paper concerned, which concludes:

We have some scientific understanding of many of these issues but not nearly enough, and the application of our scientific understanding of how policies influence social norms is inadequate. The academy, therefore, needs to increase its capacity to work with policymakers to effectively use existing knowledge on policy–behavior–norm interactions and to generate needed new insights in a timely fashion.

We have three recommendations for improving this process:

(1) the greater inclusion of social and behavioral scientists in periodic environmental policy assessments;

(2) the establishment of teams of scholars and policymakers that can assess, on policy-relevant timescales, the short- and long-term efficacy of policy interventions; and

(3) the alteration of academic norms to allow more progress on these issues[

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In order to play an effective role, then, the academy will, itself, need to reflect on its own professional norms as
potential obstacles to constructive engagement.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The academy needs to do what it can—and more than it is doing now—to deliver on this more promising
environmental future

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This article arose from discussions at a meeting sponsored by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, Newport Beach, California, 20–22 January 2009.

read it?

comment on what the paper says, not what people want you to think the paper says?

It's a paper about the role of the academy, nothing more - though I confess I'm slightly confused as to which academy!

reply to post by AndyMayhew


My comments all fall within the line of what is being discussed in the paper. I even included several excerpts that clearly show their intentions, not to mention that other work, excerpts, and papers also show exactly what these people have in mind.

They are talking not only about influencing people through behavioral modification, but even say that even if a mayority of the people would not agree with the policies they have in mind, but such policies are forced on them eventually people will get used to them.

Let me excerpt AGAIN part of what is written in that particular paper.

...
We agree that social norms are important, but social
norms and values shift in complicated and often unexpected
ways (Ehrlich and Levin 2005) and respond to myriad
forces at both lower and higher levels of social organization
(Ostrom et al. 2002). If no tipping point is reached, a minority
of the population potentially shoulders the burdens of
proenvironment behavior; moreover, their efforts alone are
unlikely to have a sufficient impact on the types of emerging
environmental challenges that the world faces. Substantial
numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors
to address this new class of global environmental problems.
Alternative approaches are needed when education and persuasion
alone are insufficient.
Policy instruments such as penalties, regulations, and
incentives may therefore be required to achieve significant
behavior modification (Carlson 2001, House of Lords 2011).
Policies apply to everyone in a particular jurisdiction and, as
a result, ensure that the burdens of proenvironment behavior
are widely shared, which increases the probability of
measurable positive outcomes.
...

www.aibs.org...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

read it?

comment on what the paper says, not what people want you to think the paper says?

It's a paper about the role of the academy, nothing more - though I confess I'm slightly confused as to which academy!

If you don't even know what academy it is then it is obvious that you did not read neither the excerpts provided nor the link to the main paper.

The problem is, politicians just kick the can for four years, leaving it to next administration who does exactly the same. So nothing gets done. We need to focus on the problems man can do. We have collectively created a huge plastic island of rubbish floating in our seas. Shouldn't we be collectively responsible for cleaning it up.

The plastic island is just one example where there is no doubt humans have had an influence. Deforestation, cutting down the lungs of the Eco system is going to have some type of effect isn't it? There needs to be long term plans to tackle these problems, but governments are only concerned with winning the next election, so fail to take the steps needed to tackle these problems. There are solutions, just not the political will to carry them through

Originally posted by rickymouse

The reasoning behind this cannot be compared to Hitlers actions. You have no concept of how Hitler really was.

Oh yes it can, among the many things Hitler wanted to enforce was to make Germans environmentally friendly, and even vegetarians.

www.aim.org...

Originally posted by rickymouse
The carbon at ground levels is not a problem, the CO2 in the atmosphere is the problem. Make big parks full of trees near the cities and they will tie up the carbon. Evidently you haven't done much open minded research on this. I know that I will never convince someone who is set in their ways to listen to reasoning that challenges their beliefs.

First of all, again atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant... Try to find the definition of air pollutants and nowhere will you find CO2 as being one of them...

Even wikipedia, a very leftwing source has this to say about pollutants...

A substance in the air that can be harmful to humans and the environment is known as an air pollutant. Pollutants can be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, or gases. In addition, they may be natural or man-made. Pollutants can be classified as primary or secondary. Usually, primary pollutants are directly emitted from a process, such as ash from a volcanic eruption, the carbon monoxide gas from a motor vehicle exhaust or sulphur dioxide released from factories. Secondary pollutants are not emitted directly. Rather, they form in the air when primary pollutants react or interact. An important example of a secondary pollutant is ground level ozone — one of the many secondary pollutants that make up photochemical smog. Some pollutants may be both primary and secondary: that is, they are both emitted directly and formed from other primary pollutants.

Major primary pollutants produced by human activity include:

Sulphur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Volatile organic compounds
Particulates
Persistent free radicals
Toxic metals
Chlorofluorocarbons
Ammonia
Odors
Radioactive pollutants
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Second of all, the atmosphere of the Earth has several different layers, the Troposphere is the layer where most weather events occur, and is the one atmospheric layer which affects surface temperatures. This atmospheric layer extents from the ground to about 17km/11m to 20km/12m, it contains 80% of the atmospheric mass and 99% of it's water vapor. In this atmospheric layer water vapor constitutes from 95% -98% of the greenhouse effect, depending on whom you ask, and because of these facts alone we know that water vapor is the real culprit in ghgs for warming the Earth, but the AGW camp has twisted facts so much that they claim CO2 is the main ghg to the point of being more powerful than the Sun itself in the eyes of the AGW camp, when in fact is a very minor one which hasn't shown to affect temperatures, but temperatures have always shown to affect CO2 levels.

As for who hasn't done much research at all in this topic it is pretty obvious that such a person is you, but you think that making some incoherent arguments which makes no sense, and does not back your views is evidence enough for you, I guess more power to you. The fact still remains that CO2 is not a pollutant, and all the real evidence suggests it does not cause the "massive warming" claimed by the AGW camp.

Oh and btw, why is it that these same people, including the UN, etc, are not calling for example to clean up the plastic island in the middle of the Pacific ocean?... Why do they want to exempt China, India, etc, when these are the countries with the worst pollution problem to the point of being the REAL pollution producers... No, instead they want to go after atmospheric CO2, and want to blame "first world countries, and people like Americans and Europeans"....

BTW, to those Europeans who think that third world countries don't blame you as well for "the Anthropogenic CO2 problem", you haven't been listening to them at all, because the same way as Europeans tend to want to blame Americans, in third world countries they see Europeans as part of the problem.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Didn't you know that the United States was one, if not the first country to introduce a law which prohibits buying wood that is acquired through illegal deforestation? It includes buying from countries that sell wood which is taken from tropical/amazon forests. It is known as the Lacey Act of 1900, which was introduced by a Republican none-the-less, and it was last amended in 2008 when it expanded on other woods, and plants, etc that the law protects.

Not to mention that as a matter of fact forests in the U.S., Canada, and Europe among some others have been growing, and the Earth on overall has been greening in the last few decades, even despite illegal deforestation, and some countries still allowing deforestation to continue.

Yes, illegal deforestation is a problem, and even what some countries, like Brazil, to this day are still allowing. The same thing for the REAL toxic chemicals which are being released, and which in countries like China, India, etc, are not banned, nor even really monitored, yet the elites want to squeeze the middle classes in first world nations, and going after the real toxic chemicals doesn't help them to do that. Hence they don't really go after those who are truly polluting our rivers, lakes, oceans and even the atmosphere, instead they are blaming mainly the middle classes of the world and want to squeeze us, and control every aspect of our lives to make us as poor and defenseless as the poorer people in the planet, and many regular people are going along with this elitist plan either knowingly, or unknowingly...

i know this will sound rather simplistic, but, this is, all about the money. global businesses need to keep poison out of the air and water as much as possible...and if they do not do this voluntarily, governments around the world need to pass laws, that include jailing the entire executive management if needed. . the fact that businesses do this just to make a few extra bucks of profit, should tell anyone with a brain where their priorities lie

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


1,000ppm or more? That's ridiculous. Standard indoor air quality is supposed to be lower than that, 600ppm is usually the threshold where people start to feel uncomfortable breathing, at 1,000ppm people begin to get bad headaches, feel nauseous or fatigued. Using indoor air as an example to say that high levels of Co2 are okay just shows how little you understand science. Solar radiant heat, reflecting and trapping that heat isn't really an indoor issue, is it?

1,000 ppm isn't that unusual, and would be typical for a crowded indoor area (office, mall, etc.).

BUILDING INSPECTORS

Carbon dioxide CO2 levels outdoors near ground level are typically 300 ppm to 400 ppm or 0.03% to 0.040% in concentration.

Carbon dioxide CO2 levels indoors in occupied buildings are typically around 600 ppm to 800 ppm or 0.06% to 0.08% in concentration. You'll find this data in many indoor air quality articles and books and it's consistent with what we find typically in our own field measurements.

Carbon dioxide CO2 levels indoors in an inadequately vented space with heavy occupation is often measured around 1000 ppm or 0.10% in concentration. I have measured levels around 1200 ppm in occupied basement offices in a hospital where the staff worked in an area which had no decent fresh air intake into their ventilation system.

In 1989 I also measured 1200 ppm at chest height in the center of the sanctuary in a Jewish synagogue during the high holy days in a small New York city. I also observed people nodding off. We were never sure if it was a droning sermon, exhausted worshipers at the end of a long week, or the CO2 level. But there was no doubt that we were not meeting recommended ventilation standards for that space.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


CO2 is not technically a pollutant, you are right about that. If concentrations of any natural molecule build up in the atmosphere though it causes changes in the atmosphere. We ignored real science before, creating a false idealism that the world is big enough that all the changes we made to it would be absorbed and it would repair itself. That is true but what we do creates a change and that change could bring along mans extinction. I do not consider that a bad thing though since we are destroying the environment.

Maybe you can't believe the truth. Maybe you believe god will take care of it or that the world is immortal. Everything can die, nothing is immortal.

Hitlers environmental concerns were not evil. Just because he was a little crazed and ruthless does not mean every single thing he did was bad. Your insight is misguided, you need to look at the big picture.

I think the chemicals we are creating are much more detrimental to the environment than the CO2 myself. If we lowered our unnatural chemicals and restricted the bioengeneering of our foods the earth would be better off. We need to use caution when making changes and reevaluate the changes we have already done. We have accelerated the CO2 levels that reach the upper atmosphere as we made things more and more efficient thinking that they won't hurt things. Burning coal leaves soot, the soot. If the soot does not form than that means there is more pure CO2 released into the air. Cleaner burning means more CO2 reaching the upper atmosphere.

For twenty years we have been trying to make our cars burn more efficient but the amount of fuel they burn. has not substantually decreased here in America. We use the converter which makes the heavy particulates into CO2 so they float up. We got rid of the smog which we can sense but started to screw up the atmosphere more. They even had pumps pumping air into the exhaust coupled with a converter to make it look like we were polluting less. If they would have just redone the engines and lowered our use of fuels we would have been better off but then there would have been less money for oil companies and consequently less good paying jobs for workers. That is a no no for the Economy. I see that their screwed up philosophy coupled to greed is causing us harm.

So believe what you want, it is your right but don't push your screwed up perception on others. I like to look at both sides and examine the evidence that is related to side effects. It seems to me that our competitiveness and lack of fully evaluating things in this country is a major problem. Mankind has not ever in our recorded history created such an environmental impact as we have today.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

1,000ppm or more? That's ridiculous. Standard indoor air quality is supposed to be lower than that, 600ppm is usually the threshold where people start to feel uncomfortable breathing, at 1,000ppm people begin to get bad headaches, feel nauseous or fatigued. Using indoor air as an example to say that high levels of Co2 are okay just shows how little you understand science. Solar radiant heat, reflecting and trapping that heat isn't really an indoor issue, is it?

Please... people get headaches, feel uncomfortable etc, due to a lot of factors, including bad ventilation which produces stale air, lack of sufficient O2, etc...

If you want to look for a real bad analogy, and a complete lie is the one being used to this day about the greenhouse effect, as if the Earth was even remotely similar to a greenhouse... :/ The Earth is not even a closed system like a greenhouse, yet to this day this very false analogy is being used to describe an effect we don't fully understand...

BTW, nicy try, but just claiming I don't understand the science doesn't make it so... Just because you want to believe everything you are told about Climate Change and AGW doesn't make it so, or make you right...

Originally posted by rickymouse

CO2 is not technically a pollutant, you are right about that. If concentrations of any natural molecule build up in the atmosphere though it causes changes in the atmosphere. We ignored real science before, creating a false idealism that the world is big enough that all the changes we made to it would be absorbed and it would repair itself. That is true but what we do creates a change and that change could bring along mans extinction. I do not consider that a bad thing though since we are destroying the environment.

There are so many things wrong about your argument that I don't even know where to start.

First fo all, if anyone is creating a false ideology are those who keep siding with liars like Mann, Jones, Hansen, et al. Every one of the main proponents of AGW, who for some reason are still called scientists, have been caught lying, publishing false information, and erroneous data, and or have been caught even writing about using any tactic to stop research that refutes the AGW hoax.

Making claims about other people "ignoring the real science" does not make your argument right... I can counter your argument by saying " the concensus of the mayority of scientists has been wrong in the past, so the concensus of the mayority of scientists now must be wrong too"... That's without going into an argument about whether there is, or there is not a real concensus, and whether or not is true that "a mayority of scientists agree with the AGW claim"...

Not only that, but we do know as a fact that the Earth has had more atmospheric CO2 than now, and not only did Earth recover, but also in much of the Earth's existance atmospheric CO2 was higher than now and life not only existed but THRIVED on Earth.

Not to mention that there is no real proof that an increase in CO2 ever caused mass extinctions. Now, bear with me and let me explain this last statement I just made...

I know some of you will jump the gun and post about past extinctions which are THOUGHT that CO2 was the cause of, but the fact is that other events were occurring, such as the cause for the release of CO2 which could have been the real reason/s behind the mass extinctions.

I can post links to many different scientists who THINK some other factor was the cause for those extinctions. For example, a large meteor/asteroid crashing on Earth, or large scale volcanic activity on Earth, etc could have been the real cause/s for some, if not all of those extinctions.

Originally posted by rickymouse
Maybe you can't believe the truth. Maybe you believe god will take care of it or that the world is immortal. Everything can die, nothing is immortal.

Oh, so you have the truth, so I guess that's it, I shouldn't be even trying to discuss this topic because "you" know the truth. How about you make an intelligent and concise argument instead of being so vague, and trying to proclaim you know the truth?

Not to mention that like always, people like you have to bring up "belief"... In fact, my arguments are not based on any "belief", but rather because of knowledge...

First of all, nature itself and observation shows us that most, if not all the claims behind AGW are false. For example, the fact that the largest seasonal and annual warmings have occurred in areas which are remote, and far away from large cities should be a quick tell-tale sign that the claim behind AGW is wrong.

...
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

Not only that, but the claim that the Sun's activity stopped increasing in the 70s, or 80s is also wrong.

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
...

www.nasa.gov...

The above research was only made during the period between 1978-2003, and in that research, the main scientist in charge of NASA's ACRIM experiments found that the Sun's activity was in fact increasing even during that time that to this day the AGW proponents claim the Sun's activity had slowed down or stopped, when that is not true at all.

Other past, and later research, and even observation of solar activity such as the levels of electromagnetic storms in the Sun all show that in fact the Sun's activity had been increasing since decades before the late 1970s, but that it didn't stop increasing in 2003, but even up to about the year 2006, right before the Sun's activity truly slowed down to a crawl, and coincidentally around the time when temperatures on Earth began to drop for a while until it started picking up again.

Then there is the fact that GCMs (Global Computer/Climate Models) have been found to be not only inneficient but comepletely wrong. You can scroll back in this same thread to find some of the research that supports the fact that GCMs are wrong.

Then there is the fact that water vapor is not only 10 times more potent than CO2 molecule, by molecule, or the fact that it is a lot more abundant than CO2, meanwhile CO2 exists on Earth right now at 0.0038% of all atmospheric gases meanwhile water vapor exists at from 1%-4% of atmospheric gases.

It is also a known fact that during warming events the levels of water vapor increase exponentially causing a feedback effect. The warmer the earth's atmosphere is, the more it can hold water vapor, and the Earth has been warming since around the 1600s, even as it was still undergoing the LIA (the Little Ice Age)

Then there is the fact that we know that changes in level of atmospheric CO2 have most often than not occurred after changes in temperatures, or in other words, as an average CO2 level ncreases have lagged temperature changes on Earth by an average 800 years. During the ongoing Climate Change the lag was around 200 years since we know through borehole data that the Earth was warming slowly but surely since around the early 1600s, and temperature has been exponentially increasing since that time.

Originally posted by rickymouse
Hitlers environmental concerns were not evil. Just because he was a little crazed and ruthless does not mean every single thing he did was bad. Your insight is misguided, you need to look at the big picture.

No, it is "your insight" that is misguided... You are reaching a conclusion made from a false belief that it is okay to force people to do your will because in your eyes "it is for a good cause"... But not only is your "belief" based on false assumptions, lies and deceipt, but you even think that "as long as it is for what you THINK is a good cause it is okay to force your will and opinions on others", which is downright nothing but a dictatorial and flawed argument...

Originally posted by rickymouse
I think the chemicals we are creating are much more detrimental to the environment than the CO2 myself.

First of all, whether man-made or not CO2 is not "detrimental" at all in the levels that exist on Earth, and mankind is not going to increase at any time the levels of CO2 on Earth's atmosphere to even begin causing any detriment. Before that happens either mankind finds new sources of energy, or because of the environment the Solar System is moving into we will have to change everything about the way we live., if we are not destroyed first that is, and not because of man-made CO2.

Originally posted by rickymouse
If we lowered our unnatural chemicals and restricted the bioengeneering of our foods the earth would be better off.

First of all, you should learn to stay in one topic/argument. One thing is the discussion of toxic chemicals, and real toxic gases that are being released and neither the UN, nor most scientists proponents of the AGW claim want to even try to stop, and another thing is using a completely benign gas, as is CO2 (even man-made) as an excuse for the implementation for the draconian laws, taxes, and global government which we are being pushed into accepting...

Yes there are REAL toxic chemicals and gases which we should not be releasing into the environment, but that is not the goal of the main proponents of the AGW hoax. Otherwise they wouldn't for example exempt countries like China, India, and Brazil among others from releasing even CO2 as for example as the Kyoto protocol suggested...

Originally posted by rickymouse
We need to use caution when making changes and reevaluate the changes we have already done.

I agree with that up to the point when you obviously lump everything together. First of all, changes can be either good or bad. Second of all, the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels have actually proved to be benefitial, and not detrimental as you are trying to imply. Not only that, but the warming itself, which there is no proof it was caused by CO2 in the first place, has also been proving benefitial.

June 05, 2003 - (date of web publication)


A NASA-Department of Energy jointly funded study concludes the Earth has been greening over the past 20 years. As climate changed, plants found it easier to grow.

The globally comprehensive, multi-discipline study appears in this week's Science magazine. The article states climate changes have provided extra doses of water, heat and sunlight in areas where one or more of those ingredients may have been lacking. Plants flourished in places where climatic conditions previously limited growth.

"]Our study proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth," said Ramakrishna Nemani, the study's lead author from the University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.
...

www.nasa.gov...

Not only is CO2 benefitial for all life on Earth since an increase, even compared to today's levels, to about 1,200-1500ppm will increase the harvests, and complete growth of not only our food source, but essentially all green biomass on the planet. It is also known that with increased levels of atmospheric CO2 plants make better use of water, which means they use less water leaving more for humans and animals, and what is one of the propositions by the AGW camp?... to sequester atmospheric CO2 which will eventually stunt the growth of all green biomass on the planet causing even more worldwide starvation than we are experiencing... And that's of course without going into detail how certain people, and governments want to control every aspect of people's lives, having control over everything we do under the disguise that "we are fighting Cliamte Change/Global Warming."

One thing is to talk about toxic chemicals and gases, and another thing altogether is atmospheric CO2...

Originally posted by rickymouse
We have accelerated the CO2 levels that reach the upper atmosphere as we made things more and more efficient thinking that they won't hurt things.

First of all, there is the fact that natural CO2 emissions far exceed anthropogenic ones. Year to year the differences in natural emissions change so much that in any given year the change in natural emission from one year to the next can, and do exceed the total anthropogenic emissions in that same year.

Second of all, an increase of atmospheric CO2 has not proven detrimental AT ALL to either the environment, or humans.

Third of all, again you do need to learn the difference between the real toxic chemicals and gases, and CO2...

Originally posted by rickymouse
Burning coal leaves soot, the soot. If the soot does not form than that means there is more pure CO2 released into the air. Cleaner burning means more CO2 reaching the upper atmosphere.

What?... First of all soot is a FORM of carbon, but it is not CO2...

Second fo all, soot at the levels that they can be released in the atmosphere by mankind doesn't stop any noticeable amount of CO2 from reaching any higher in the atmosphere than if there was no soot being emitted into the atmosphere by mankind...

Originally posted by rickymouse
...
If they would have just redone the engines and lowered our use of fuels we would have been better off but then there would have been less money for oil companies and consequently less good paying jobs for workers. That is a no no for the Economy. I see that their screwed up philosophy coupled to greed is causing us harm.

Another false belief you have there. You seem to be among those people who think that any technology can be "free"... I can tell you from working with technology that no technology can be free... Money can be made from ANY technology even those so called "free energy"... For one I can tell you that the mayority of "free energy devices" out there, and their so called inventors try to sell you the item themselves or were invented by companies, and people who sell the items you need to buy...

This is another false "belief" a lot of people have these days, but i can tell you this, first of all you need to be knowledgeable about the technology in mention, and second of all not only do you need money and resources to build such technology, but also to repair it, and to either update your knowledge on such technology, or to hire someone who knows how to repair such technology.

Apologies if I rain on anyone's parade, but any TECHNOLOGY will need money not only to be built, but to be repaired, and to have, or learn any new knowledge on such tech to keep it working, or in most cases to have someone perform maintenance on that particular tech.

Originally posted by rickymouse
So believe what you want, it is your right but don't push your screwed up perception on others. I like to look at both sides and examine the evidence that is related to side effects. It seems to me that our competitiveness and lack of fully evaluating things in this country is a major problem. Mankind has not ever in our recorded history created such an environmental impact as we have today.

First of all, and again it is not ANY of my "belief", but rather what real science and knowledge tells me...

Second of all, I am not the one trying to push any false belief on others, it is people like YOU who are trying to push your false belief in AGW on everyone else because you think/feel that it is for a good cause...

Third, the real reason behind the AGW/Global Warming hoax is...

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming been blamed on humans)

Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum

by

Francesca Beausang


ABSTRACT

This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

www.unesco.org...

But you go ahead and "belief" what YOU want to "belief", but don't even imply it is ok to FORCE your "beleifs" on me or anyone else even if you, and however many agree with you "think" it is for a good cause...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse



Complaining and saying something is not real does nothing for the problem Electric Universe. I see your hot air is only adding to global warming. Their facts are true and mankind is involved but to say it is only CO2 emissions is a falsity. Lets see if you can contribute something useful instead of arguing. Evidently by your last post you understand that there are major problems. Work to fixing these problems not denying problems do not exist.


My trees love CO2. When I have a campfires in the summer the leaves get nice and green and the number of leaves I rake up increases. You are right about CO2 being good for trees and even other plants. We are destroying trees in critical areas though so they cannot do their job. We are destroying the ability of the soils to support life by raising corn for fuel. Corn alcohol is one of the worst polluters there is, releasing a lot of Nitric oxide into the atmosphere which is ten times as bad as Carbon dioxide.

You are right that CO2 levels are picked on and other polluting practices which are much worse are neglected because their neglecting is beneficial to Economics of countries. To steer our focus towards CO2 alone is a major problem. I see much more problems with other pollutants, most of them formed from unbalancing chemistry in water and soil, than in CO2 emissions. A coal fired electric plant does not do that much bad for the global polution. But by breaking up the particulates and allowing lightweight molecules to rise, the CO2 is above the trees. There are no trees or grass in the sky.

Society has gone astray. They have been conditioned to follow greed and irrational behavior. If I am walking on my property and I have to go pee, I will just pull it out and pee by a tree. I eat natural pretty much and avoid endocrine disrupting foods and chemicals. I don't do it where I can be seen though, I'm not into tickets. The Nitrogen from my urine and other minerals it contains is good for the tree. It makes it more resistant to burning. If I peed by the same tree or a hundred people peed by that tree all the time, the tree would die and natural chemistry would be altered in a way that plants would not grow. This concentrating of chemistry in our sewers is bad. We need to worry about cleaning our sewer waters better and recycling the nutrients they contain instead of sticking them into our rivers, the water we are dumping is too concentrated.

Now you may say I am off topic with global warming but in essense I am not. I am trying to preserve the ability of the earth to process the CO2. I am saying that by being too sanitary we are using practices that are harmful to the environment. Keep the farms small and let many people raise ten cows instead of concentrating a thousand cows in one spot. Let everyone make a living. We have bowed down to big industry. Make a lot of small industries with adequate regulations and put a local store into all communities so we don't have to hop in a car to get a loaf of bread. Let small businesses survive, making the American dream a possibility for more people. Life isn't about surviving and being a slave to industry, it's about living and being self sustainable. I will bring about the wrath of businesses for what I say, but big business has it's place. We need them to supply our small businesses, not to compete with them. The cheap prices at Menards cause a destruction of our environment more than the higher prices of a small lumber yard because everyone buys more which stimulates the production of more things, thus polluting more.

Instead of taxing us to raise prices, promote the little stores to start in communities again. Support your local small grocery store that spends his money in the community. Buy locally produced foods where you can, it's fresher and try to buy foods that are not treated with endocrine disruptors. These chemicals will make you have to eat more to make the energy you need. Eating less without being hungry is not bad, you can't eat starches and expect to be thin if the endocrine disruptors don't let you burn the energy, it will be stored. Regulations can be kept that keep pollution on a local level from getting bad but having a tire in your yard is not going to hurt anything. Keeping your grass mowed low all the time and weedfree means watering must be done, we are getting low on water which is a very important concern. Don't keep your grass too high so it attracts bees to bother the neighbors either and don't plant a yard full of nice flowers in town to attract bees to bother others. People can't keep themselves sensible, that is a fact.