Danish Limos & Political Incongruence
Posted by red pill junkie at 01:04, 09 Dec 2009I believe that my stance on Global Warming should be pretty clear to anyone who might bother to read my comments spread all over TDG —namely, that I join the ranks of those who think our world is at a great peril, due to the climate changes brought (in a significant way) by our reckless administration of this planet's resources.
I might also add that I'm the kind of person you *don't* want near during the mornings; and that's because one of my favorite rituals is to yell in anger whenever I read some scandalous article in the newspaper.
So this morning I'm pretty sure all my neighbors in a very wide radius around my home noticed my gutural reaction to this tiny article I read on Reforma, commenting on another article by The Daily Telegraph of Dec. 5, in which I learned of all the limousines being chartered by the international delegations during the Copenhagen summit:
Ms Jorgensen [managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company] reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."
Jesus, Mary & Josephine! I mean, it's not that I was expecting the leaders of the nations to swim all the way to Denmark, in order to save all those tonnes of carbon released during their airplane flights. And I realize that expecting them to move around Copenhaguen on a bike might be a bit too demanding for some of the more senior attendants... but COME ON!! 42 limos, France? Srsly?? You need all those wheels in order to haul Sarkozy's ego?
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."
And then politicians wonder why they don't manage to convince the common people to accept their proposals. My personal definition of politician is: "A human being completely devoid of congruence."
An alternative one might be "Bipedal oxymoron." I'll let you choose your favorite or suggest other ones.
IMO, it's precisely actions like these, that sabotage the Enviromental movement much more than any old hacked e-mail released into the web for whatever obscure intentions. It's because it belittles the honest work & commitment of the people that are trying to change things for the better. It's a symbol of why we're having to deal with this pickle in the first place.
It was the same with that other important summit where the leaders of the world gathered to discuss global hunger: making speeches about how children in Africa & Asia starve to death while making toasts with champagne & gobbling truffles & caviar.
Now I realize why it was so fitting to choose Copenhagen to host this summit. With these kind of "leaders", the only viable plan we might have to survive Climate change and the inevitable rise of the oceans, would be if we follow the suggestions of the local artists :-/
[UPDATE/Dec 27th]: Checking past episodes of The Daily Show, I found out that Jon Stewart commented on the limo fiasco (on Dec 14th) in his own incomparable style. Enjoy!
Bookmark/Search this post with
- red pill junkie's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
22 November 2004
5 days 7 hours
Indeed we can see how seriously our leaders are taking all this. Painful measures are for the little people.
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
I wish we could find a way to take them out of the equation; to circumvent them so WE the peple can solve those problems. But the problem is that many people think their responsibility with democracy and society stops the moment they cast their vote.
I also read somewhere that we humans still elect our leaders mainly because of their physical appearance —but no, I don't want to get into a debate of Obama having a defeated McCain because of his youth and slim constitution— it's merely a remnant of our evolutionary programming; but it's also the reason we keep appointing imbeciles in directive roles instead of the right man or woman for the job.
Also, a politician is an animal of short-term vision. It can only be bothered with immediate problems, things that could be an issue in its term in office. If there's something that's going to be a serious threat by the time of its retirement, then is subtly downplayed. That's why Climate Change will never be solved by politicians.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
7 March 2009
1 year 25 weeks
I think you've got it backwards when you say, "I wish we could take them [politicians] out of the equation...so that WE the people can solve those problems." Don't you see that those very people (IPCC jet-set politicians) are the ones who invented the problem in the first place?! If you remove them, you remove the problem, because you remove the force that is pushing scientists like Phil Jones to perform junk science with desired/"correct" results already in mind.
They used faulty/rigged data to fear-monger the formation of a "CONSENSUS,"--but then when that data is shown to be suspect, they say, "Well, yeah, but there's a consensus." What is this, a Groucho Marx routine, or an honest scientific debate?! Sounds more like the former to me.
If all those IPCC guys really cared about Earth and thought Global Warming was a problem, they would have been HAPPY about the Hadley CRU leaks, because it would have shown them that Global Warming won't kill civilization, since the planet is cooling! But they ALREADY KNOW that; it's just a hoax of a problem to scare through the legislation they've been preparing.
What part of "hide the decline" are people not understanding, here?! Even Jon Stewart commented that those Hadley CRU emails are discussions concerning manipulation of data, with the intention to mislead people! And do REAL, HONEST scientists delete their data because they "ran out of room", and then just expect us to trust their honesty?!
It's this very limo/jet-set behavior on the part of the IPCC's elitists that shows AGW is a non-issue, because THEY don't even believe in it themselves! It's merely a scam to exploit the good-intentions of people who care about Earth and humanity. Why isn't the mainstream media focusing on the snow in Texas & Mexico, the record-breaking cold in San Francisco, the record-breaking snow in Arizona, all the record-low temperature levels set across America in 2009, etc.? Because it would make people rightfully question the fear-mongering they're hearing every two minutes.
They're going to use our good-will toward the planet and turn it into cap-and-trade dollars, extra tax-dollars wrung out from the middle- and lower-classes, and new global laws dictating which countries can industrialize and how--a system ripe for corruption and geo-political manipulations. This is about MONEY and POWER, as always. (And gee, what's the "carbon footprint" of Obama's escalation in Afghanistan? Maybe we could start by cutting THAT! :)
The Hadley CRU leak (and analysis of the file organization seems to indicate an INTERNAL LEAK, and NOT an outside hack) is an absolute VICTORY for red-pill poppers! Once you realize it's the energy & auto companies who support Global Warming theory (thanks to cap-and-trade), it's a little harder to buy the now-dead argument that "It's the oil companies that WANT you to doubt Global Warming!" No, it's precisely the opposite:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/oil-companie...
This Hadley CRU leak is great news. How ironic that some environmentally-minded people are so bummed about it!
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
My post was meant to criticize the politicians' behavior; you seem to think that the IPCC scientists are riding those limos with them as well. In that, I don't agree.
Did the scientists act unethically with all those e-mails? Yes. Does that disprove global warming? No.
BTW, I'm Mexican, so I'm pretty aware of the snow falling on Ciudad Juárez. But I'm also equally aware of the scarcity of water in Mexico city, where I live; brought in part by global warming.
Global warming does not mean the end of winter. It means more aggressive seasonal changes, with hotter summers and colder winters.
They're going to use our good-will toward the planet and turn it into cap-and-trade dollars, extra tax-dollars wrung out from the middle- and lower-classes, and new global laws dictating which countries can industrialize and how--a system ripe for corruption and geo-political manipulations. This is about MONEY and POWER, as always. (And gee, what's the "carbon footprint" of Obama's escalation in Afghanistan? Maybe we could start by cutting THAT! :)
I agree completely with that argument. I don't support a cap-and-trade strategy; to me it's like putting a bandaid to contain the hemorrhage of a shot-wound.
There are pendejos eager to make money with global warming, yes; just as there are pendejos looking to keep thing as they are for a little while longer, so they can get buried in a fancy expensive grave, even if that means their grandchildren will have to spend the rest of their lives confined in a gated community/fortress, while the rest of the masses kill each other for a glass of water.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
22 November 2004
5 days 7 hours
The fundamental problem is that the remedies recommended by the AGW proponents most likely won't help anyone.
Fact is the scientists supporting the ICPP predictions are dishonest about how reliable their predictions are. They have measured that it has been getting warmer, but their judgement about why is not very reliable. There are many reasons, and they picked the greenhouse gases, with CO2 as their focus.
Now they recommend to limit the CO2 content in the atmosphere, and that will supposedly fix the problem. How do they know that, given that they ignore factors other than gases, and their methods are somewhat iffy? The simple answer is they don't know.
But supposedly they do know how to manage the climate. And the worst part is, people follow their advice.
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
To me, the idea that CO2 emissions released by man has a significant influence in the climate, despite all the other factors that must be also weighed, is like the metaphor of the elevator that is choke-full of passengers just barely within its weight capacity. Then comes a fly that briefly lands on top to rest, and makes the cable to finally snap and the elevator to plummet down to the basement.
In other words, man-made emissions are being added to the equation of a very unstable and complex energy system.
Yes, there are other factors involved; and yes, even if we reduce the emissions to pre-industrial levels, we will still have hurricanes and tsunamis and floods.
But if we don't do something about it, the consequences would be catastrophical for future generations.
Furthermore, we should be trying to reduce CO2 emissions, if nothing else, because they are hazardous to human health. Believe me, living in Mexico city, one is painfully aware of such a fact. I have often wondered if the irrational behavior of Mexican drivers is caused by CO2 poisoning! ;)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
22 November 2004
5 days 7 hours
The best we can hope for is that reducing CO2 output has beneficial side effects, such as reducing dust, soot, NOx, SO2 and others.
CO2 is not hazardous to human health. What the drivers (and pedestrians) are suffering from is CO, and unburned hydrocarbons.
Your analogy with the fly illustrates that the situation is bad. But throwing out the fly won't help the situation one bit.
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
Throwing out the fly would prevent the elevator's cable from snapping. That's the point of the analogy.
The CO2 emissions released by us will cause a chain reaction that will be beyond our controlling, even if we decide then to stop our own emissions; because by then the permafrost in the arctic will release the carbon stored in the peat of the tundra; and that will eclipse anything humans would have been able to emit.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
22 November 2004
5 days 7 hours
As if we control any of it now
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
Touché! ;)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
7 March 2009
1 year 25 weeks
back from Dec. of 2008, an article by Christopher Booker,
"2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...
The Earth is not even warming, so "do humans cause Global Warming?" is basically a moot question by this point.
Think of how complex a system our biosphere is, and what an amazing example of Mother Nature in action---able to create a sturdy, flexible balance keeping this planet life-sustaining for long enough for all these diverse life-forms to evolve! Truly amazing. We are very egocentric to think that just a little bit of human activity could drastically derail Gaia!
Our industrial chemicals are the REAL worry! Pollution is a huge problem, all over the planet. But focusing on CO2 as the culprit will only let the industrial polluters continue to dump the TRULY hazardous materials, because everyone will be distracted by harmless CO2!
The amount of CO2 we pump out is negligible, and not even shown to really be an influential "greenhouse gas" in the first place. Planet Earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is now. OF COURSE the climate changes. If the climate didn't change, this would be a dead planet (like the moon!--no climate changes THERE! :).
That's why "Global Warming" was switched to "Climate Change"---the scientists involved know that soon it will be obvious that the planet is not heating up at all, so they had to distance themsevles from the "Global Warming" phrase before they looked completely foolish. Now they just scare us with the prospect of "extreme changes, hot AND cold!"
It really pisses me off how the media is handling this. I've had a few people think I'm some kind of right-wing nut because I doubt Global Warming, and that's exactly what the media/governments want. They want the public to associate AGW-skepticism with bimbos like Bush & Palin, Glenn Beck, etc. I can't stand any of those people, because they are just "useful idiots" being used to re-inforce the myth of Global Warming---because NO ONE with a brain wants to come off sounding like Sarah Palin! So they use this pressure to nudge liberals (which is the majority of Americans by now, thankfully) into dismissing AGW-skepticism by making it look like something only a Sara Palin or a greedy oil-man would listen to.
I urge everyone to check these sites for related info:
http://www.WhatReallyHappened.com
http://www.PrisonPlanet.com
http://www.InfoWars.com
Read their articles/analyses on Climate-Gate for a week or so, then compare that perspective to what you see on the nightly news, and ask yourself which is actually the bigger picture addressing more of the info & questions. Ask yourself who has more to gain--these independent, dissident voices, or the mainstream media, owned by General Electric, etc. Look at as much of the big picture as you can see, and I think you'll remove most of your worries concerning Global Warming.
It makes me very glad & hopeful to know that there are so many people who care about our Earth and want to take care of it, and it pisses me off that there are elitists trying to use that well-intentioned good-will toward their own selfish ends, which will only make human affairs WORSE.
Thanks for listening to my ranting, and thanks for the thoughtful posts that have made me think more deeply about the issue myself! Blogs like this are where the real, honest discussion can happen---because our mainstream media is too corporately-controlled to be open & honest with us.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
Our industrial chemicals are the REAL worry! Pollution is a huge problem, all over the planet. But focusing on CO2 as the culprit will only let the industrial polluters continue to dump the TRULY hazardous materials, because everyone will be distracted by harmless CO2!
I agree that we should be trying to come up with integral solutions in order to curtail pollution. To neglect hazardous chemicals would be a serious mistake.
Perhaps CO2 has to be the first thing to solve, and after that more will follow. If we stop our dependency of oil (which is running out anyway) we would have to stop consuming so much plastic, which result in less pollution in the oceans and less land used for landfills in urban centers.
If we start projects like vertical farming in cities, that would not only reduce carbon emissions from transporting produce to supermarkets, but it will also reduce prices and it will increase the varety of our diet —not to mention new jobs.
If we come up with better ways to transport ourselves other than gas cars, it would give a significant improvement on the lives of citizens of megalopolis lke Mexico city or Tokio.
Where I don't agree with you is that our CO2 emissions are negligible. I see how the anti GW community uses the "anthropopcentric" argument that we are so little and insignificant, and therefore we couldn't possible have the impact scientists warn us about; but that argument runs counter with the evidence that —puny as we may be— humans are very good with depleting resources, extinguishing species, claring out jungles and forests, AND messing up with whole ecosystems —for example, the dead zones one can find in the gulf of Mexico, due to all the fertilizers poured down by the US agricultural industry.
They want the public to associate AGW-skepticism with bimbos like Bush & Palin, Glenn Beck, etc. I can't stand any of those people, because they are just "useful idiots" being used to re-inforce the myth of Global Warming---because NO ONE with a brain wants to come off sounding like Sarah Palin! So they use this pressure to nudge liberals (which is the majority of Americans by now, thankfully) into dismissing AGW-skepticism by making it look like something only a Sara Palin or a greedy oil-man would listen to.
Believe it or not, I can sympathize with that, since I'm a believer of fringe ideas like ghosts and UFOs, and I hate how the media always chooses to interview the typical tinfoil hatter! ;)
I suppose the GW skeptical community should try to come up with a better representative of their dissident opinions, then.
Meanwhile, we should all agree that finding alternatives to oil benefit us all, GW or not. Oil is running out anyway, and most of what remains is in the hand of people that don't like you Americans (Russians, Arabs, etc). If we can find a way to make use of the renewable resources we neglect (our frikkin' star, for crying out loud!) I ask you: is that really that bad?
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
1 May 2004
13 weeks 4 days
the harm has been done and is irriversable. The shortage of water you spoke of earlier, nothing to do with any warming.
Food production down, shortage of water makes for a warmer inviroment. It is not just Mexico, it is all over the globe and yes it is man made but not how you believe.
It is happening over your head every few days. Mostly above clouds but often in plain view. You will never hear a politician mention it nor a scientist. It is now the 11th year of this program so the billions of tons of Barium, Aluminium and other questionable toxins sprayed in the atmosphere is there and createing these drought conditions all over the world. It still rains but not in the right places.
People should wake up and look real hard at what is happening. It is a fact and undeniable. It will be too late soon.
I wrote a comment here on TDG a few years ago saying that "they" were working on a means of controlling water and food supply in order to force in a one world order and achieve complete control of the population. It is happening and this "global warming/ climate change" is only a smoke screen. Keep the populace worried and in fear and you have control.
This planet can not sustain the population it has now let alone in 10 years time.
The most serious threat to all of us is happening and people can't even see it.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
So "they" want a fascist/communist/neo-liberalist/leninist/ultra-capitalist New World Order, and they are playing us from ever angle in order to get it...
Sorry, I don't buy it.
The scarcity of water in Mexico city is the result of several factors. Drought is one, yes; but it's also an evident result of overpopulation and incompetency to administer the water. When some citizen reports a broken pipe in his neighborhood, you'd think that the city government would send a team to the site to fix it ASAP... and you would be wrong.
Some scientists think that the meteor that crashed in the Yucatan peninsula wasn't really the main cause for the extinction of the dinosaurs, but the final blow that came after a prolongued decline.
I think te same will happen with GW; it will only exacerbate the problems we've been dragging for a loooong time. Our lack of planning; our lack of compassion; our lust for power. GW will only speed things up.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
22 November 2004
5 days 7 hours
I personally have no idea who or what was responsible for the dinosaur extinctions (there was more than one I think). I was not around at the time.
I will say though that hey didn't plan for much of anything, so perhaps with a little sober thought they might still be around. Probably didn't wash their hands either, and were thus more susceptible to viral infections.
One thing I find entertaining related to this is that extinction theories are influenced by political philosophies. I can understand that for the time periods when humans were around. But it seems to happen for much earlier periods as well.
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
Yeah, I can see how washing its hands would have been a real pain in the tail for a T-Rex :-P
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
1 May 2004
13 weeks 4 days
it is recycled over and over. A small group has always sort ways to control the masses. Every country has it's own version of elitists.
As for the spraying of vast amounts of chemical,biological and heavy metals in our air, it matters not if you believe, but the only way it can be stopped is through puplic outrage. And this can only happen if people wake to this fact.
As for Dinosaurs, they were big and plentiful and the planet was one big greenhouse. As the planet cooled, the food supply deminished and so did their numbers to the point were all herbivores either starved or became pray to carnivores which in turn became canibals for survival. We are doing a similar pattern but we have so called intelligents and the elitists are trying to buy and trade their safty at the expence of the drones.
The power drunk, ego driven elitists will reduce the population to a managable number and control all aspects of life from then on. Sound familliar? It's been done before on many scales.
And don't think for one minute that our controllers care about your life.
They already control sickness and birth, soon it will be all water and food. Buy percentage, western populations have never been this sick before. Wouldn't you think it should be the other way around. The idea is to target percific gene pools and people with certain pre-dispositions. This is tested frequently with the release of certain pathogens. Most viral infections are blood type related because of antigens. This allows a certain control over a target group.
Truth, my friend, is stranger then fiction!
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
7 March 2009
1 year 25 weeks
Check out this article (and the articles it links) to see how the Copenhagen framework will allow Enron-style tricks to shuffle numbers around without even reducing the real amount of man-made CO2! And the economists who invented cap-and-trading don't think it'll work for something like "Global Warming," anyway--
http://www.prisonplanet.com/copenhagen-f...
As one of the links within the above says:
"Trick two: double-counting. This is best understood through an example. If Britain pays China to abandon a coal power station and construct a hydro-electric dam instead, Britain pockets the reduction in carbon emissions as part of our overall national cuts. In return, we are allowed to keep a coal power station open at home. But at the same time, China also counts this change as part of its overall cuts. So one tonne of carbon cuts is counted twice. This means the whole system is riddled with exaggeration – and the figure for overall global cuts is a con."
Here is a great resource full of articles with more arguments & info than the mainstream media is showing us:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?conte...
CO2 is only a *trace* gas in the Earth's atmosphere, comprising only about .038 percent of it! Plus, the HUMAN contribution is only a small percentage of THAT!
And even if you STILL think the Earth is warming catastrophically, don't you ever stop to wonder if the Sun would be influencing it? Nobody on TV ever seems to mention our Sun's "sun-spot cycle" and how that affects weather/temps on Earth. Why don't they consider this more, if it's about an open, scientific debate?
It should make you VERY suspicious that political & industrial leaders are seizing SO eagerly on CO2 as the culprit, when much of the science is in doubt, and much of it is has never even been understood in the first place!
I would say that our Sun, our planet's energy-source, has a hell of a lot more influence on our planet's weather & temperature than the TINY percentage of TRACE natural gases in our atmosphere. Any thoughts on the Sun's role in "climate-change"?
22 November 2004
5 days 7 hours
Here is what is in it for the various participants:
- Governments get a value added tax on pretty much everything. All manufacturing, shipping and transportation is effectively taxed. They can use this, seeing that they just spend several million million dollars that don't exist.
- Environmentalists get their symbolic victory.
- Socialists get more control over how economies are run.
- Countries that are afraid of foreign competition get to slow down China and India just a tad.
- The folks who crashed markets trading in real estate, oil, and such things get a new thing they can trade. It's a really cool thingy, they can trade something that doesn't exist.
- The AGW crowd in 25 years, when CO2 hasn't dropped but the climate emergency is over in the public mind, gets to say they were right.
Isn't that nice for everyone?
----
We are the cat.
1 May 2004
13 weeks 4 days
...plays a very significant role in our wheather. It has a 22 year cycle with a 11 year split. Our best long range forecastor here in oz uses the suns cycles to great benefit.
This "climate change/global warming" will be seen in history as the grandest magicians slight of hand trick ever played upon a world audience.
And as earthling stated,(paraphrase) it is a win win for them who stand to gain everthing.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
7 March 2009
1 year 25 weeks
Check out this article (and the articles it links) to see how the Copenhagen framework will allow Enron-style tricks to shuffle numbers around without even reducing the real amount of man-made CO2! And the economists who invented cap-and-trading don't think it'll work for something like "Global Warming," anyway--
http://www.prisonplanet.com/copenhagen-f...
As one of the links within the above says:
"Trick two: double-counting. This is best understood through an example. If Britain pays China to abandon a coal power station and construct a hydro-electric dam instead, Britain pockets the reduction in carbon emissions as part of our overall national cuts. In return, we are allowed to keep a coal power station open at home. But at the same time, China also counts this change as part of its overall cuts. So one tonne of carbon cuts is counted twice. This means the whole system is riddled with exaggeration – and the figure for overall global cuts is a con."
Here is a great resource full of articles with more arguments & info than the mainstream media is showing us:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?conte...
CO2 is only a *trace* gas in the Earth's atmosphere, comprising only about .038 percent of it! Plus, the HUMAN contribution is only a small percentage of THAT!
And even if you STILL think the Earth is warming catastrophically, don't you ever stop to wonder if the Sun would be influencing it? Nobody on TV ever seems to mention our Sun's "sun-spot cycle" and how that affects weather/temps on Earth. Why don't they consider this more, if it's about an open, scientific debate?
It should make you VERY suspicious that political & industrial leaders are seizing SO eagerly on CO2 as the culprit, when much of the science is in doubt, and much of it is has never even been understood in the first place!
I would say that our Sun, our planet's energy-source, has a hell of a lot more influence on our planet's weather & temperature than the TINY percentage of TRACE natural gases in our atmosphere. Any thoughts on the Sun's role in "climate-change"?
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
I do think the Sun might be a factor to consider in climate change. As I wrote earlier, we are adding our emissions to a very complex and fragile energy system.
It should make you VERY suspicious that political & industrial leaders are seizing SO eagerly on CO2 as the culprit, when much of the science is in doubt, and much of it is has never even been understood in the first place!
The way I remembered, it took quite a while to convince the leaders of the world that something ought to be done. We should remember that concerns about global warming began in the 1980s; during that time the oil industry and the coal industry and car manufacturers dismissed it as woo-woo; yet you guys seem to think that they secretly embraced global warming as the next big cash cow by then, but they slowly changed their stance to keep appearances and fool all of us. Don't you think that's a tad unrealistic? ;)
And once again, I agree 100% that cap-and-trade is nothing but bull burp —which contributes to GW too :-P
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
22 November 2004
5 days 7 hours
Indeed:
...a very complex and fragile energy system.
and if you could magically change the CO2 content to what it was 100 years ago, you would not get the same climate.
And I repeat, who says the climate 100 years ago, or now, is particularly desirable? In many places it absolutely sucks.
In the mega cities everywhere it sucks because the cities make it so. The bad city air has nothing to do with the climate being too dry. It has everything to do with local emissions from industry and transportation, and with local wind patterns and local geography.
But local leaders can sometimes find it easier to place the blame somewhere else.
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
And I repeat, who says the climate 100 years ago, or now, is particularly desirable? In many places it absolutely sucks.
So, the idea would be to see if GW improves the climate in some areas; that would be very fortunate for those already living there. But at what expense?
Let's play the scenario: Suppose that we do nothing and in 50 years the weather in Europe becomes more humid and temperate —the winters will become more aggressive too, but let's leave that aside— That would be great for Europeans, right? Problem is, many more people will try whatever they can to become Europeans, especially if their Sub-saharan homes become uninhabitable due to water scarcity.
GW will translate into more flow of illegal immigration, and the problems that brings.
I'm not confusing GW with pollution in the big cities. What I attempted to point out is that I have first-hand experience of how reckless escalation of industrial activity & overpopulation can damage the environment.
The water consumed in Mexico city comes from elewhere. The main source is the Cutzamala system that it's fed by the river Lerma. The Cutzamala system has reported record shortages in the past years. And the shortage is because GW and deforestation.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
22 November 2004
5 days 7 hours
Let's play the scenario: Suppose that we do nothing and in 50 years the weather in Europe becomes more humid and temperate —the winters will become more aggressive too, but let's leave that aside— That would be great for Europeans, right? Problem is, many more people will try whatever they can to become Europeans, especially if their Sub-saharan homes become uninhabitable due to water scarcity.
You are misinformed about some of the European climate. It already is humid and temperate, has been for a thousands of years. Of course this is a simplification, there is more than one climate zone there, it's not all that small.
I am not sure I believe that the water supply problems for the Ciudad are significantly related to GW. If you suck all the water out of a source, then any variation in that source is going to bite you. Deforestation is a good way to dry up an area. The snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is probably disappearing because its drier there now, not because its warmer.
The Sahel has been getting a bit greener lately because the locals are not cutting down the brush for firewood as much. The Sahara was nice and green 6000 years ago, when the climate was significantly warmer. So no, warmer doesn't mean drier. I would not be surprised if a warmer climate results in more rain.
I have first hand experience living (not just visiting) in moderate continental climate (Easter North America), moderate coastal climate (Northern Germany), subtropical coastal (Florida), mediterranean (Southern California). And all the drawbacks associated with seriously big cities.
There are other cities that are running out of water. Big cities always do that. London, England is running out of water, and nobody in their right mind would blame that on the dry climate.
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
There might be temperate areas in Europe, and they might even have very warm days during the summers, but I bet it's not like the summers and warm climate we have in the countries closer to the Equator. After all, there ust be a reson why I see all these European tourists strolling around in shorts and sandals when all of us locals are wearing sweaters ;)
I am not sure I believe that the water supply problems for the Ciudad are significantly related to GW. If you suck all the water out of a source, then any variation in that source is going to bite you
Like I said, GW is a new factor that's been added to the poor handling of water resources in the city. Rains were very scarce these past few years —and when it does rain, it's a big flooding— and so the Cutzamala system didn't regain the necessary water needed for the drier seasons. Part of it is due to deforestation, of course.
The snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is probably disappearing because its drier there now, not because its warmer.
And wold that account for all the other glaciers that are disappearing? in Europe and South America as well?
But this is getting nowhere. Like I wrote, this post was not about trying to convince people about GW. It's about how with big problems politicians are always inadequate to rise to the challenge because by definition they are sort-sighted opportunists.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
21 February 2009
15 weeks 3 days
Though i've been tempted to wade in on this debate since it is right up my alley, especially where people have alluded to geological evidences and paleoclimatic examples, i haven't done so.
The sheer complexity of why people don't accept it renders the question of whether it is happening or not mute.
Only one of my professors didn't think mankind was causing global warming when i started my degree. He sited lack of study of sun activity as the main reason he hadn't agreed with the consensus. By the time i finished my degree he too accepted it. The affect of the sun as the main cause of the current climate warming has been ruled out. There have now been three 11 year cycles and 1.5 of the 22 year cycles since climatologists started pointing out the danger of CO2 driven warming.
The idea that we are only responsible for a small amount of the atmospheric CO2 is disproven. I put the graph up last week, here it is again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon...
You can see it has jumped from around 280ppm to 380ppm in the last 100 years. Thats a little more than a few percent.
It has taken great effort to convince politicians and industry to do anything about climate change. They have been reluctant at every step of the way for the last 30 years.
Only now that it is obvious that we are going to shift our economies in this direction have worlds largest companies changed strategy. Change has been resisted in every direction for decades.
And yes, it is all about money. Sadly the only way you can shape the economic behavior of billions of people is well - by shaping their economic behavior. Every company see's financial possibilities in this.
I really don't mind the power struggle. There is no way it wasn't going to happen at the birth of a new generation of technologies, economics and consumerism.
As for cap and trade. We are not going to suddenly (or ever) output zero CO2. A limit needs to be set on what we can output safely, a cap. After this limit has been decided upon it needs to be dished out fairly. The idea of trading what has been allocated is not too silly, though this depends on its implementation. The only important thing is that the cap is not breached. How individual countries exploit their share is up to them, but if they are not using it all in any year then poorer African countries can either sit on it and let it go to waste, or sell it. As said, so long as the cap is not broken then it will help us all.
So i am not against cap and trade per se, but that depends on its implementation and whether it is fair.
1 May 2004
4 hours 59 min
Here is the problem with your reasoning on AGW. There is no evidence, at least none that is above suspicion. To borrow from your example, you don't know what the capacity of the elevator actually is, let alone that the fly matters. The articles, studies, and computer models your opinion relies on go back to the skullduggery we are hearing about now. Even the original data is, oops, "lost" and unavailable for re-examination.
Unfortunately, we tend to view authority figures like scientists as one-dimensional purveyors of truth. The scientists have certainly sought to reinforce this misperception on a constant basis. Scientists are, however, multifaceted, imperfect human beings capable of deceit.
You, and others here have commented on the power grab involved in this situation by socialist politicians. Where does the scientist fit into a socialist worldview? They fit in very easily. They perceive a coming ordered command society where they will serve a privileged role as the advisors and engineers to the dictatorial power. By virtue of their intellect (and hubris), they believe themselves to be valuable assets. They expect to be a merit-based elite. Better yet, most of the "inferior" people they desperately envy will be taken down about a thousand pegs. The CEO, the executive, the salesman, the athlete, the entertainer, and the celebrity will all suffer as they should, while the scientist is praised and elevated.
We have seen a string of promised "scientific" calamities doomed to befall us because, we are told, of capitalism and freedoms. Overpopulation caused by privately controlled reproduction, global cooling brought on by industrial emissions from capitalist countries (communist countries always seem to get a pass), and nuclear annihilation because of warmongering Westerners who refuse to disarm and capitulate to virtuous, peaceful socialist powers have all been trotted out and then have faded away. And now, global warming takes their place as the "emergency".
Man caused or influenced global warming is, at present, nothing more than a theory without evidence. No action should be taken in reference to global warming until a dispassionate and truly scientific endeavor is conducted to seek the truth. The real crime is that the IPCC scientists, with their corruption, may have made that endeavor to find the truth impossible in a practical sense.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
This post was certainly not an attempt to convince you guys about GW. It was about my frustrations on how the politicians tend to treat serious problems with their typical elitist attitude.
Over the years we've presented links in TDG that should make a very solid case for GW; there have been also others among us that have linked stories intended to dismiss GW.
As a TDG admin, it's not my place to tell you what you should believe in or not; the info we present here is intended for you to use in order to form an educated opinion.
In this issue, like in many others, we will ave to agree to disagree. I see evidence for global warming; because I understand global warming as an overabundance of extreme weather. I already experience this in my daily life in Mexico city; believe me, living in this place gets you a diffeent perspective about how man can screw things pretty easily.
GW makes some people talk about the infamous NWO. I tried to be a bit cynical with Floppy earlier, trying to make a case that the idea of the NWO is a Rorschar inkblot of our personal fears —meaning we imagine it according to our political belief system; and as such, the NWO is for some an ultra-capitalist hell in which multinational corporations will finally replace democratically elected governments (in other words, the rule of the right). And yet others see the NWO as a communist dictatorship where the UN will cull the human population to more manageable numbers (in other words, the rule of the left).
Many of you talk about NWO, and yet you don't seem to realize that the NWO of one is completely different from the NWO of the other. To me, the NWO is nothing but a construct of our fears.
But getting back to the IPCC, you seem to think they are nothing but corrupt scientists that want to make themselves seful to their eventual NWO masters. I certainly don't see the IPCC that way; to me, the IPCC is comprised of many excellent and committed men and women —I remember I once investigated the credentials of some Mexican scientists that were part of the IPCC, back when some people believe the people who signed the IPCC climate report were nothing ut weathermen of poor countries; the credentials of those scientists were spotless.
Do I think the IPCC is infallible then? of course not! after all, they are human beings like all of us. But corrupt as it may be (and I have yet to see evidence for this) the IPCC is the best we have so far. Hopefully, we will do better in the future, because Lord knows the climate is just one of the many problems humans have to solve.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
22 November 2004
5 days 7 hours
Apart from its political agenda, the IPCC members are mostly in the business of academia. That is not the same as science, even though most people in the business are scientists by qualification.
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
If Academia is a business, then I guess everything is a business, right? Unless there's someone out there like the scientists of the XIXth century: aristocratic scholars with resources of their own to conduct their research.
That might have been feasible when all you needed to study the heavens was a telescope an a bottle of brandy (to keep you warm). But I do wonder if a modern Newton would have the resources to launch his own satellite nowadays ;)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
22 November 2004
5 days 7 hours
Yes it is a business. The flavour of business is different form an oil company, or a service company. It is more like some of the non-profit businesses, or like some NGOs.
----
We are the cat.
1 May 2004
4 hours 59 min
What I am getting at is that the politicians are not alone. They have collaborators. The scientist has to feed, clothe, and house himself. For this he needs money. The politician has a big fistful of money (not his) to spread around.
The scientist is told he can have the money IF he produces what the politician wants. No global warming, no cash. The scientist has to choose between professional integrity and all the money he needs to live comfortably. Unfortunately, the scientific leaders have chosen the money. Those who disagree are faced with becoming social and professional outcasts unless they cooperate.
Once elements in the IPCC engaged in now known manipulation, constructed models meant to produce a predetermined result, attempted purges on dissenters, and deliberately lost original data, those elements have rendered their conclusions useless. They cannot and must not be trusted. Your Mexican scientists have most likely rendered an opinion on data and models they unknowingly assumed to be solid.
In order to end up here, the politician corrupted the process, but the scientist took the bribe. What do we do now? Who do we trust to find the truth? The politicians still have their agenda and their borrowed/stolen money. It does not matter if you are pro or con on global warming theory. The corruption has resulted in either a total fraud or the destruction of credibility in the theory.
The lack of integrity across the board is about to kill us one way or another.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
Although there's no doubt in my mind that there are corrupt scientists out there, you have to keep in mind that in Science you cannot keep things hidden or twist the consensus indefinitely. That's precisely the beauty and strength of Science!
Case in point: in the 80s a lot of money was spent to try to convince people that cigarettes had nothing to do with lung cancer. Many scientific findigs were suppressed and a lot of scientific spokesmen were paid in order to muddle the waters. But in the end the truth came out; and one of the reasons it came out is that money can buy you the loyalty of men, but it will NEVER buy you the loyalty of the laws of Nature.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
1 May 2004
13 weeks 4 days
there is billions of dollars at stake here. Your right about the laws of nature though.
This little snippet of yours here:
"Case in point: in the 80s a lot of money was spent to try to convince people that cigarettes had nothing to do with lung cancer. Many scientific findigs were suppressed and a lot of scientific spokesmen were paid in order to muddle the waters. But in the end the truth came out; and one of the reasons it came out is that money can buy you the loyalty of men, but it will NEVER buy you the loyalty of the laws of Nature."
Science is based on observation. Observation 1;almost everyone knows some person who has smoked all their lives and not had lung cancer.
Observation 2; People in rural areas have a much lower rate of lung cancer.
Observation 3; up until 1996, all break pads and shoes had asbestos in them.
Observation 4; people in cities are surrounded by dirty atmosphere from burnt fuel and dust from breaking vehicles.
Obsrvation 5; the smoking rate has dropped considerably, but the rate of lung cancer has not.
That will do for now. That attack on smoking as the root of all ills is a smoke screen built on junk science. There is very little difference between that and AGW. These have been used to create policy and have in each case been a winfall for goverments in the form of taxes.
Observation on AGW is that the changes the scientists predicted 11years ago has not happened in the slightest.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
So smoking as a factor for cancer is junk science, too. Well... I'm at a loss here.
Since arguments and statistics and 'proof' is going to be of little help —and like I wrote, it wasn' my intention to convince anyone about GW to begin with— then allow me to use a much known syllogism:
Cool, huh? I remember it from my highschool days. Now, change God for GW, and have fun. It's not that I agree that GW should be accepted as a modern religion; it's only to try to make you see the benefits of accepting the argument you oppose.
If GW doesn't turn ou as bad as the eggheads think, then... what? we would have turned gas cars into quaint relics, and explored other more abundant sources of renewable energy —oh, and cleaned the atmosphere and learn how to manage the resources of this planet more intelligently while we're at it. Oh, the horror!! :-P
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
1 May 2004
13 weeks 4 days
....renewable resorces. I am all for sustainability. I am a bit of a greeny and have been all my life. But you fail to see that the power houses do not act on anything until it can be made into a profit based action. If they were dead serious about GW then action would be taken straight away regardless of how much any industry stands to loose. The CO2 argument has only come to the limelight since an effective way of collecting money from people,so profits do not drop, came to be.
I do not dispute a rise in temperture in the lower atmosphere. But the reason for this is the heat island effect, not only from cities but also from cultivation and deforestation. The amount of vehicles at any given moment being driven with their hot engines, aircraft jet engines and heating of homes in winter. Ashfalt roads and many more heat obsorbing, human built things.
What I am against is the lies and deceptions from people with their own agendas confusing the whole issue.
Serious action is not being taken, only action that appears to solve a problem but does not. Moving the blame to CO2 is only for the purpose of money not for the earth.
This is why there are so much conflicting data out there. This is also why I disagree with the AGW argument.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
1 May 2004
4 hours 59 min
You present faulty logic on both counts. The premise does not hold true if God does not exist. In a Christian society, it is easy to lose sight of such consequences. Living a moral life appears mostly harmless. However, you will lose whatever might be gained by committing immoral acts, putting you at a disadvantage to those who will. Let's say you can successfully steal $1000. You will be $1000 better off than before. If you are not discovered or punished, only divine retribution can reach you.
Similarly, there are negative consequences to acting as if AGW is real when it is not. Nearly all economic effort generates carbon dioxide. As a pertinent example, the manufacture of cement results in about 5% of CO2 emissions. So, real savings can be made by greatly restricting building activity. Persons can live in higher concentration in existing structures and in far fewer new buildings. As a side effect, there will be a far lower number employed in the building trades. Would a downsized draftsman or architect feel great if he were to discover there was no need to put him on the unemployment line?
Such an example could be repeated for all manner of industries and even developing countries. China and India know that their future economies are at stake. We have to get the science right for the sake of hundreds of millions of people. Some of these people will die without economic development that will be choked off by this agenda. The global warming scenario is not the only one with a human cost.
The Piltdown man hoax persisted for 40 years. It was taught as fact in schools. Only 3 years after discovery it was pointed out as a forgery, but no one in the establishment listened. When you mix agenda with science, the results may not be exposed for a long time. The politicians are picking causes that allow them maximum interference in our lives, like global warming and health care in the U.S., so they can control us. The scientist who promotes their agenda is rewarded and the scientist who opposes it is ostracized.
I support serious reforms in our lifestyles on the basis of freedom, elimination of waste, and the reduction of pollution. Some of the things we do are just bizarre, like abandoning rail transport for much less efficient trucks, or building low quality homes out of bad lumber and glue here in the U.S. instead of durable materials.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
Did you know I was an interior designer already, or did your little crystal ball tell you? ;)
IMHO whatever negative side-effects would come from taking steps into reducing carbon emissions will be downplayed in the long run if we turn to more efficient energy resources, and make more intelligent use of renewable materials.
Take the example of construction: you seem to believe that cement is the only way humans can construct dwellings. We might be using composite materials, recycled polymers, intelligent ceramics or other things I can even think of right now in the future. We might be so good with genetic engineering that we could design trees in which the branches and roots bend into whatever shape we could need, so we could build 'living' houses.
All I'm saying is that we shouldn't fear to change our ways. And we certainly don't need the developing countries to repeat the mistakes of the richer ones, just because they want to taste the "good life". There can be sustainability and prosperity in a more balanced way.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
21 February 2009
15 weeks 3 days
Hay hay to that.
Obviously we have to change our ways somehow. Somehow. When i was younger and more idealistic i thought you could argue sense, but we don't work that way. You can't argue uphill, well too much. I never suceeded in arguing market regulation, the minimum wage, tax funded health care (even though we have it), etc with my more capitalisitic friends and i never suceeded arguing green initiatives that negatively affected economic activity either. I think its this failure to agree that forces us down the market route to fix the problem. Whatever the solution ends up being it needs to involve everyone, which means all those people that don't agree.
I remember reading that if you used dolomite instead of limestone to make the concrete it would absorb CO2 over the lifetime of a building. I'm not sure if i've got that right though, material wise. Either way, producing CO2 absorbing construction materials would help.
I've also seen a building put up using normal foundations, a wooden frame, then straw bales used to construct the walls, then the staw plastered over. I thought that was interesting. Apparently it is very heat efficient, and it went up very quickly.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
Ecology.
Economy.
Both words have the same Greek root: Oikos, which means 'home'
One deals with the study of one's home (our planet).
The other deals with the administering of our home's resources.
So ironic that in this era both ideas seem to be in confrontation; but the bottom line is that, without ECOlogy, there can not be an ECOnomy.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
21 February 2009
15 weeks 3 days
Thanks for that. I had never seen the root of the words.
I guess you more mean unfortunate than ironic, like in the Alanis Morrisette song where nothing is actually ironic, just unfortunate.
'Its like rain on your wedding day' - only ironic if your a weatherman and predicted sunshine
'Its a free ride when you've already paid' - only ironic if your a train/bus conductor.
It is a bit ironic though i guess, in some ways.
Every species is in some way in tension with its environment. Being as global and powerful as we are it is no surprise that we do the damage we do. I am with you on pretty much everything you have said regarding the environment (i'm coming round to your way of thinking on UFO's as well).
As someone with an earthy type education and profession my opinion is that there is no way out of affecting the planet in the way we do. Ideas of changing behaviour, or just suddenly being a different species are nice, but i think they are as unrealistic as everyone suddenly seeing the world in the same way.
At least we have now won the argument that the large companies are not going to be able to do things the cheap way. They are not making the profits they could do anymore as we have forced them to behave in ways that are detrimental to their bottom line. 'We the people' have forced great changes this last century, i think we will continue to do so. There is much work to be done, but no simple answer; not even a right one. This is one where we must just muddle through, hopefully always in the right direction, and always changing to fit the circumstances.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
You're 35-ish as well, ain't ya? :-P
Yes, I guess that some sort of grass-roots activism is the way to go to force the hand of corporations and governments. If people realized the power they wield as consumers, CEOs would not sleep well at nights.
But in order to consumers to use their power sensibly, education must come first. That's why informing the younger generations about what's happening to their planet is paramount. Maybe in the years to come we'll witness ludicrous trials like the ones intended to introduce intelligent design in the science curriculum of state schools —but now oriented to the new schism of global warming, who knows.
Well, Copenhague ended, the politicians returned home in their limos and jets, and nothing tangible came out of it. Next year we'll have another opportunity in Mexico (Nov). We have until then to figure out a way to produce a significant environmental activism.
PS: I wanted to take the opportunity of thanking you for all the wonderful discussions we've had this year. I guess I will have to be more tolerant of P.Z. Myers in the future, or at least accept him as fortuitous feature of the web's landscape, because thanks to him you managed to find TDG and have successfully become a very productive & valuable member of our community. You are opening the eyes of us all of what it truly means to be a skeptic :)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
22 November 2004
5 days 7 hours
We should also thank the likes of the US musicians, who by their activism in matters ecological set a shining example for so many others. Just check out the story of the 5 homes their guitarist is planning to build in California, on a nice little plot on to of some hills.
Or was it economical matters these guys excel in? I keep getting mixed up about that.
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
What can I say, vato? You know I hate how much money pop artists make. Should we hate these people if they don't give away ALL of their money to the poor, to show they really put their money where their Grammy is? It would be more sensible to wait for the return of Kukulcan, Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha riding a silver flying saucer before that happens.
To be human is to cause an impact, whether we like it or not. Everything we do has a consequence; you said it yourself once that every person does need to have a modicum of selfishness, otherwise one would reach the conclusion that the world would be better without us to pollute it and overcrowd it.
So, if these mega-stars are going to continue with their outlandish king-like life-style, at least is a bit (stressing on 'a bit') comforting they intend to do so in an eco-friendly manner.
Can there be ways to have beautiful architecture that blends itself with the natural landscape. Yes, there can, as Frank Lloyd Wright showed many decades ago.
Is The Edge going with the eco-friendly plan just to save face in an hypocrite way? that's a matter for another discussion.
Should mega-rich be allowed to have homes everywhere they please? No. Should they be allowed to have so much money? again, that's something for another discussion.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
22 November 2004
5 days 7 hours
I don't really care how much money he makes or whether he deserves any of it. Most people would take it, I would find good use for it too. I might even build a few nice houses.
But I would not lecture people that they should live smaller when I expand to my heart's content. I thought the story fit in pretty well with the beginning of this thread.
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
3 hours 42 min
I see your point. I don't know if The Edge or the rockstars like him have asked the people to "live smaller", though. To be honest, I don't care too much about the opinion of those people.
Maybe one of the problems is this 'live smaller' concept. What does it really mean? it may have different interpretations to different people.
Granted, there's definitely some hipocrisy in his actions; but tell me: would the alternative of him making a big-ass mansion that pollutes the environment and destroys the landscape be preferable?
I think that what annoys me the most about that story is not the fact that he is going to build those houses; but the fact that he's being allowed to appropriate a beautiful piece of the Malibu landscape for his own personal use. That's what should be debated.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
21 February 2009
15 weeks 3 days
Hi RPJ, Merry Christmas.
Yep, 31 :)
Just wanted to say thanks for the kind words. I've had alot of fun here and will be sticking around to continue to bug you all ;)
We may well believe in different things to different degrees, though that doesnt actually mean much, but other than that i think we are all quite alike. People who like to think, which sadly is not as common as it should be.
Thanks for the bit about truly being a skeptic, thats a big complement coming from you lot.
I think we are all skeptics so in a sense it is not being skeptical that is the thing, it is how we do it.
It is exceptionally easy to build our own world views by picking and choosing. The really hard thing is trying to understand what is well evidenced and let it mold yourself in correct proportion to what is not well evidenced - balanced alongside the philosophy of what understanding is in the first place.
If not a description of skeptisism i would say that that is a part of it.
10 August 2004
18 weeks 2 days
We started off by having a friendly discussion about the possibilities of water divining, and I'm pleased I didn't put you off from sticking around.
I enjoy your posts as they are always interesting and informed (although I don't always understand exactly what you're writing!).
I look forward to seeing you here again in 2010.
Best regards, Kathrinn
21 February 2009
15 weeks 3 days
Thanks very much,
Nope, you didn't put me off at all, as if you would - made me think actually. I always find it hard writing posts; on other sites i have re-read my comments and not had the faintest idea what i was on about. I guess i'd just ask that you pin me down and say 'O- what you rambling on about now?' :)
Looking forward to 2010 and wish everyone a good year and that it is as good as it can be.
Kind Regards