[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

New Doves album ‘The Universal Want’ coming in September - KevinM - Jul 9, 2020 - 4:23pm
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - BlueHeronDruid - Jul 9, 2020 - 3:59pm
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 9, 2020 - 3:41pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 9, 2020 - 3:40pm
 
Trump - cc_rider - Jul 9, 2020 - 3:32pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - Jul 9, 2020 - 3:27pm
 
South Korea - haresfur - Jul 9, 2020 - 2:38pm
 
COVID-19 - haresfur - Jul 9, 2020 - 2:22pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - Proclivities - Jul 9, 2020 - 1:43pm
 
Things You Thought Today - black321 - Jul 9, 2020 - 1:31pm
 
Social Networking - R_P - Jul 9, 2020 - 12:54pm
 
Name My Band - rhahl - Jul 9, 2020 - 12:36pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Red_Dragon - Jul 9, 2020 - 12:27pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - Jul 9, 2020 - 12:03pm
 
One Reason I Don't Trust the Police - miamizsun - Jul 9, 2020 - 11:19am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 9, 2020 - 10:32am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Jul 9, 2020 - 9:26am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 9, 2020 - 8:53am
 
Ask the Libertarian - Lazy8 - Jul 9, 2020 - 7:40am
 
RP streams in Opus - Romain98 - Jul 9, 2020 - 6:06am
 
Dog - kcar - Jul 8, 2020 - 11:13pm
 
Questions. - oldviolin - Jul 8, 2020 - 6:49pm
 
Bad Poetry - oldviolin - Jul 8, 2020 - 6:41pm
 
Sunrise, Sunset - oldviolin - Jul 8, 2020 - 4:01pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - oldviolin - Jul 8, 2020 - 4:00pm
 
Iran - R_P - Jul 8, 2020 - 1:31pm
 
China - R_P - Jul 8, 2020 - 11:48am
 
Happy Birthdy, Ringo Starr - norbertZ - Jul 8, 2020 - 4:07am
 
The Obituary Page - haresfur - Jul 7, 2020 - 8:16pm
 
Trump Lies - ScottN - Jul 7, 2020 - 8:00pm
 
Fox Spews - R_P - Jul 7, 2020 - 7:48pm
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - R_P - Jul 7, 2020 - 3:18pm
 
Things that are just WRONG - kcar - Jul 7, 2020 - 3:00pm
 
Immigration - R_P - Jul 7, 2020 - 2:28pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - black321 - Jul 7, 2020 - 1:29pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jul 7, 2020 - 11:14am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 7, 2020 - 10:36am
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Jul 7, 2020 - 9:16am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Jul 7, 2020 - 9:03am
 
Counting with Pictures - yuel - Jul 7, 2020 - 7:53am
 
2020 Elections - KarmaKarma - Jul 7, 2020 - 7:47am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jul 7, 2020 - 5:29am
 
Sweet horrible irony. - kcar - Jul 6, 2020 - 9:36pm
 
New Music - R_P - Jul 6, 2020 - 7:58pm
 
Why are 2 of the best albums of the last decade completel... - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 6, 2020 - 1:55pm
 
What The Hell Buddy? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 6, 2020 - 1:31pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Jul 6, 2020 - 11:58am
 
The All-Things Beatles Forum - Steely_D - Jul 6, 2020 - 11:04am
 
The Electoral College - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 6, 2020 - 10:36am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Jul 6, 2020 - 8:55am
 
The List of Reasons Why Schlabby Hates People - sunybuny - Jul 6, 2020 - 7:47am
 
Florida - Coaxial - Jul 6, 2020 - 6:09am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - miamizsun - Jul 6, 2020 - 5:44am
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - buddy - Jul 5, 2020 - 7:06pm
 
Live Music - buddy - Jul 5, 2020 - 6:59pm
 
Outstanding Covers - buddy - Jul 5, 2020 - 6:51pm
 
Gardeners Corner - kctomato - Jul 5, 2020 - 3:24pm
 
Race in America - R_P - Jul 5, 2020 - 2:35pm
 
Movie Quote - rhahl - Jul 5, 2020 - 12:03pm
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Jul 5, 2020 - 11:53am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Jul 5, 2020 - 8:50am
 
Favorite Quotes - oldviolin - Jul 5, 2020 - 8:45am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Jul 4, 2020 - 10:27pm
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - KarmaKarma - Jul 4, 2020 - 9:14pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - Jul 4, 2020 - 6:40pm
 
In My Room - Coaxial - Jul 4, 2020 - 12:26pm
 
RP stops playing after a few minutes on iPod (iOS) - gtufano - Jul 3, 2020 - 11:33pm
 
Canada - westslope - Jul 3, 2020 - 3:38pm
 
how do you feel right now? - miamizsun - Jul 3, 2020 - 1:54pm
 
US Empire - R_P - Jul 3, 2020 - 12:46pm
 
• • • PUZZLES • • • - BlueHeronDruid - Jul 3, 2020 - 10:02am
 
• • • Things Magicians Exclaim • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 3, 2020 - 8:20am
 
Bluos App and Vault 2 Streamer. Is it playing in Flac? - BillG - Jul 3, 2020 - 8:05am
 
::odd but intriguing:: - oldviolin - Jul 3, 2020 - 8:01am
 
• • • Things Musicians Exclaim • • • - - oldviolin - Jul 3, 2020 - 7:46am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 84, 85, 86 ... 101, 102, 103  Next
Post to this Topic
jagdriver

jagdriver Avatar

Location: Now with a New York state of mind
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2009 - 12:47pm


Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2009 - 12:31pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 And science is not about consensus. That's just argument by authority with an exit poll. Science is about understanding the way the universe works, and the universe doesn't care how many people believe in it. If you can prove it it's true, regardless of how many hands go up in a survey. This eventually becomes the consensus, but the consensus doesn't make the truth. The truth was there all along.
 
Maybe Science itself is not about consensus, but the science community often is.  "Understanding the way the universe works" takes a lot more than can be learned in any university.  I agree that consensus does not equal truth, but finding absolute truths about what may or may not happen in the future isn't possible until those events occur.  It seems that in theoretical science, consensus sometimes is the closest thing to an answer.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2009 - 9:18am

 islander wrote:
Strong agreement here with a couple of caveats:

Stossel and many others in the fraud/conspiracy camp have a history of distorting facts to fit their view (as do others on the the pro side, which equally discredtis them). In the end, science is about consensus of opinion, not unanimity. And the consensus is currently very much on the side of humans interfering with the natural environment and causing change.

Even if this is completely wrong (unlikely), and our actions have zero impact (again - wrong), there are a whole host of other facts from health, to pollution, to economy, to national security, to global sustainability... that all point toward a time in our near future that it will benefit us to decouple our lifestyle from Fossil fuels.

Yes, there are many entrenched interest who will profit from this move. Do you really think that there are not entrenched interests trying to wring the last few nickles out of their established system?  The point is the sooner we start the sooner we find a SET of alternative solutions that will work. And if we get started, we are likely to be the innovators who profit the most from it, rather than having to buy it from others who are already working on it.

Make not mistake, it is about profit. Some one will make out well here. I just think it should be us, and it would be cool if we could sustain a lifestyle on our terms at the same time.

Again, this shouldn't be about who said it, it should be about how true it is. If Michael Moore has something useful to say about this let's hear it. I won't hold my breath, but hey.

It also shouldn't be about who gets to sell what. I know there are entrenched interests (the IPCC among them) and I don't care. They don't get to change how nature works.

And science is not about consensus. That's just argument by authority with an exit poll. Science is about understanding the way the universe works, and the universe doesn't care how many people believe in it. If you can prove it it's true, regardless of how many hands go up in a survey. This eventually becomes the consensus, but the consensus doesn't make the truth. The truth was there all along.

hippie

hippie Avatar

Location: In the studio
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2009 - 9:06am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 miamizsun wrote:
OK, I know Stossel is considered controversial, so let's edit him out of the clip.

What about the rest of the material?

The scientists in the film that left the IPCC?

And now we see the IPCC for what it is.

Are you OK with George Carlin? (btw, I don't agree with everything he says)

This is not a Battle of Celebrities.

Science does not work on argument by authority, it works on argument by evidence. John Stossel saying outrageous things doesn't make him wrong any more than Michael Mann faking tree ring data makes him wrong.

He makes one good point in particular (and if you're concerned that John Stossel isn't a climate scientist and isn't qualified to make such an observation, unwind your knickers—it isn't his observation, he's just reporting it): historical CO2 levels in the atmosphere really do lag temperature rises. This isn't even controversial among climate scientists who support the anthropogenic climate change model.

Anyone who works with physical laws can tell you that correlation is not causation. Yes, CO2 levels correlate with temperature fluctuations...but the temperature changes first. That means that the temperature changes caused the CO2 changes (by, for instance, warming the oceans, reducing their ability to hold dissolved gasses) rather than the other way around. So when Al Gore points to CO2 levels and says they are high in comparison to recent geological history (which is true) and says the earth's average temperature is rising (which is also true) and concludes that the CO2 caused the temperature rise he might well be wrong. Thousands of years of climate data would say he is. And if that historical trend has reversed (ie CO2 levels now lead temperature changes) he may still be wrong, at least in part.

CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere have been rising for the last 20,000 years (along with the temperature, lagging dutifully behind by 500 years or so) without our help.The CO2 level has spiked lately due to humans burning fossil fuels on top of an underlying natural rising trend in temperature. If the humans were gone and that carbon stayed in the ground the temperature and greenhouse gas levels would probably still be rising, but the historical connection between CO2 levels and global mean temperatures has been broken—the greenhouse gasses are rising faster than temperatures now, and we can't use greenhouse gas levels to estimate or predict temperatures. The historical data is fascinating, but we're not on that curve anymore.

None of this means that additional CO2 provided by jets flying to Nopenhagen isn't contributing to the earth warming up. It probably is, but we can't (honestly) say we know how much. What we can say is that the earth's climate history isn't evidence for it. Pointing this out is not evil, it gets us closer to the truth.
 
Fixed that for ya.

{#Cowboy}


islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2009 - 9:01am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 miamizsun wrote:
OK, I know Stossel is considered controversial, so let's edit him out of the clip.

What about the rest of the material?

The scientists in the film that left the IPCC?

And now we see the IPCC for what it is.

Are you OK with George Carlin? (btw, I don't agree with everything he says)

This is not a Battle of Celebrities.

Science does not work on argument by authority, it works on argument by evidence. John Stossel saying outrageous things doesn't make him wrong any more than Michael Mann faking tree ring data makes him wrong.

He makes one good point in particular (and if you're concerned that John Stossel isn't a climate scientist and isn't qualified to make such an observation, unwind your knickers—it isn't his observation, he's just reporting it): historical CO2 levels in the atmosphere really do lag temperature rises. This isn't even controversial among climate scientists who support the anthropogenic climate change model.

Anyone who works with physical laws can tell you that correlation is not causation. Yes, CO2 levels correlate with temperature fluctuations...but the temperature changes first. That means that the temperature changes caused the CO2 changes (by, for instance, warming the oceans, reducing their ability to hold dissolved gasses) rather than the other way around. So when Al Gore points to CO2 levels and says they are high in comparison to recent geological history (which is true) and says the earth's average temperature is rising (which is also true) and concludes that the CO2 caused the temperature rise he might well be wrong. Thousands of years of climate data would say he is. And if that historical trend has reversed (ie CO2 levels now lead temperature changes) he may still be wrong, at least in part.

CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere have been rising for the last 20,000 years (along with the temperature, lagging dutifully behind by 500 years or so) without our help.The CO2 level has spiked lately due to humans burning fossil fuels on top of an underlying natural rising trend in temperature. If the humans were gone and that carbon stayed in the ground the temperature and greenhouse gas levels would probably still be rising, but the historical connection between CO2 levels and global mean temperatures has been broken—the greenhouse gasses are rising faster than temperatures now, and we can't use greenhouse gas levels to estimate or predict temperatures. The historical data is fascinating, but we're not on that curve anymore.

None of this means that additional CO2 provided by jets flying to Copenhagen isn't contributing to the earth warming up. It probably is, but we can't (honestly) say we know how much. What we can say is that the earth's climate history isn't evidence for it. Pointing this out is not evil, it gets us closer to the truth.
 
Strong agreement here with a couple of caveats:

Stossel and many others in the fraud/conspiracy camp have a history of distorting facts to fit their view (as do others on the the pro side, which equally discredtis them). In the end, science is about consensus of opinion, not unanimity. And the consensus is currently very much on the side of humans interfering with the natural environment and causing change.

Even if this is completely wrong (unlikely), and our actions have zero impact (again - wrong), there are a whole host of other facts from health, to pollution, to economy, to national security, to global sustainability... that all point toward a time in our near future that it will benefit us to decouple our lifestyle from Fossil fuels.

Yes, there are many entrenched interest who will profit from this move. Do you really think that there are not entrenched interests trying to wring the last few nickles out of their established system?  The point is the sooner we start the sooner we find a SET of alternative solutions that will work. And if we get started, we are likely to be the innovators who profit the most from it, rather than having to buy it from others who are already working on it.

Make not mistake, it is about profit. Some one will make out well here. I just think it should be us, and it would be cool if we could sustain a lifestyle on our terms at the same time.


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2009 - 8:49am

 miamizsun wrote:
OK, I know Stossel is considered controversial, so let's edit him out of the clip.

What about the rest of the material?

The scientists in the film that left the IPCC?

And now we see the IPCC for what it is.

Are you OK with George Carlin? (btw, I don't agree with everything he says)

This is not a Battle of Celebrities.

Science does not work on argument by authority, it works on argument by evidence. John Stossel saying outrageous things doesn't make him wrong any more than Michael Mann faking tree ring data makes him wrong.

He makes one good point in particular (and if you're concerned that John Stossel isn't a climate scientist and isn't qualified to make such an observation, unwind your knickers—it isn't his observation, he's just reporting it): historical CO2 levels in the atmosphere really do lag temperature rises. This isn't even controversial among climate scientists who support the anthropogenic climate change model.

Anyone who works with physical laws can tell you that correlation is not causation. Yes, CO2 levels correlate with temperature fluctuations...but the temperature changes first. That means that the temperature changes caused the CO2 changes (by, for instance, warming the oceans, reducing their ability to hold dissolved gasses) rather than the other way around. So when Al Gore points to CO2 levels and says they are high in comparison to recent geological history (which is true) and says the earth's average temperature is rising (which is also true) and concludes that the CO2 caused the temperature rise he might well be wrong. Thousands of years of climate data would say he is. And if that historical trend has reversed (ie CO2 levels now lead temperature changes) he may still be wrong, at least in part.

CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere have been rising for the last 20,000 years (along with the temperature, lagging dutifully behind by 500 years or so) without our help.The CO2 level has spiked lately due to humans burning fossil fuels on top of an underlying natural rising trend in temperature. If the humans were gone and that carbon stayed in the ground the temperature and greenhouse gas levels would probably still be rising, but the historical connection between CO2 levels and global mean temperatures has been broken—the greenhouse gasses are rising faster than temperatures now, and we can't use greenhouse gas levels to estimate or predict temperatures. The historical data is fascinating, but we're not on that curve anymore.

None of this means that additional CO2 provided by jets flying to Copenhagen isn't contributing to the earth warming up. It probably is, but we can't (honestly) say we know how much. What we can say is that the earth's climate history isn't evidence for it. Pointing this out is not evil, it gets us closer to the truth.

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 16, 2009 - 2:45pm

 islander wrote:


I'm open to other viewpoints, but John Stossel? Come on.


 
OK, I know Stossel is considered controversial, so let's edit him out of the clip.

What about the rest of the material?

The scientists in the film that left the IPCC?

And now we see the IPCC for what it is.

Are you OK with George Carlin? (btw, I don't agree with everything he says)



islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 16, 2009 - 12:51pm

 miamizsun wrote:
In a video that's fairly current, one of RP's favorites, John Stossel makes a few points.



 

I'm open to other viewpoints, but John Stossel? Come on.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3418

ABC News free-market evangelist John Stossel is no stranger to distorting facts and attacking environmentalists for their "earth worship" (4/28/00), so it's no surprise that he would be among the corporate media's most outspoken global warming deniers.

Stossel's 2001 special Tampering With Nature (6/29/01) tried to argue that climate skeptics are excluded from media discussions of the issue despite their impressive scientific credentials-not to mention their sheer numbers.
In contrast to environmentalist "preachers of doom and gloom," Stossel portrayed the marginal skeptics' movement as the majority: "You may have heard that 1,600 scientists signed a letter warning of ‘devastating consequences,'" Stossel reported. "But I bet you hadn't heard that 17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there's ‘no convincing evidence' that greenhouse gases will disrupt the Earth's climate."

While the implication is impressive-10 times as many scientists question global warming-what Stossel didn't tell ABC viewers were the significant qualitative differences between the two petitions. The first petition was circulated by the well-respected Union of Concerned Scientists and signed by 110 Nobel laureates; the second petition was a response organized by industry-affiliated groups that included dentists, nutritionists and others with no expertise in climatology; the only alleged requirement for signing on was a bachelor's degree in science. For a time, the screening process was so lax that the list included a number of gag names, like Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox, added by environmentalists (AP, 5/1/98).



miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 16, 2009 - 6:24am

In a video that's fairly current, one of RP's favorites, John Stossel makes a few points.


MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 16, 2009 - 5:15am

A photo gallery from the Daily Telegraph illustrating some of the countries most at threat from climate change.  I woud have to say that the Bangladesh one is the one I have chosen to copy below as it is a classic example of a low lying country with a densely settled and poor population which will be massively affected by the projected changes.  Is anyone going to offer settlement for 30m Bangladeshis in their countries?  Some of the examples in the gallery are being used for visual purposes rather than because they are the best examples however it does help to remind ouselves about the actual impact rather than saying "well the world has experienced large temperature shifts before and coped"- that was a very different world.  The impact this time on marginal populations will be terrible.

An aerial view of clouds covering flooded Chandpur 170km (106 miles) southeast of the Bangladeshi capital Dhaka

rachlan

rachlan Avatar

Location: nyc
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 16, 2009 - 2:33am

 HazzeSwede wrote:
"The largest part of the world's oil consumption is spent on cooling, and not heating, which is a common misconception"
{#Whisper}  Have you heard about "smart windows" ?
 
it is cool, especially because of what you said.   it annoys me though that they spent so much time saying :

"In reverse, it's an advantage to be able to choose to let in the sun light and heat on cold days."  .... as if there was some kind of new technology presented for this.  they don't mean more heat will be let in, they just mean the windows adjust.  i guess it is more the writers fault.   not the technology.   i guess i am in a mood, being up at 5:30 in the morning, maybe that is why i can't sleep.

HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 16, 2009 - 1:35am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Very cool!
  {#Yes}  Cool, being the operative word here !  {#Cool}


NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 16, 2009 - 1:29am

 HazzeSwede wrote:
"The largest part of the world's oil consumption is spent on cooling, and not heating, which is a common misconception"
{#Whisper}  Have you heard about "smart windows" ?
 
Very cool!

HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 16, 2009 - 1:19am

"The largest part of the world's oil consumption is spent on cooling, and not heating, which is a common misconception"
{#Whisper}  Have you heard about "smart windows" ?

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 15, 2009 - 4:13pm

 hobiejoe wrote:
 
I didn't say I liked the IMF or World Bank. At all. They're a band aid to make the western neo-liberal economies look as if they care, and a sharp stick to prod developing nations in the "right" direction, ie here's some money, now open your markets to these nice corporations, they'll look after your best interests. And don't you worry your pretty heads about these natural mineral, agricultural and fuel resources, we'll pay you with this nice little bag of money, take away those muddy old diamonds, ores and coffee beans and do the nasty old business of transforming their value through a little bit of processing ourselves.
 

Sheesh, sorry. Must've got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. Time for bed.
 
 
Hey I'm ok, if you're ok.

We're just having a conversation, that's all.

All I'm saying is that the way this deal is setup the WB will be scamming all involved.

See you tomorrow {#Wave}
hobiejoe

hobiejoe Avatar

Location: Still in the tunnel, looking for the light.
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 15, 2009 - 4:03pm

 miamizsun wrote:

These people are criminal.

I'd simply suggest that you and others investigate the World Bank and IMF.

If after you have done that and still put your blessing on them, I'd be surprised.

Regards

World Bank and IMF.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

  
I didn't say I liked the IMF or World Bank. At all. They're a band aid to make the western neo-liberal economies look as if they care, and a sharp stick to prod developing nations in the "right" direction, ie here's some money, now open your markets to these nice corporations, they'll look after your best interests. And don't you worry your pretty heads about these natural mineral, agricultural and fuel resources, we'll pay you with this nice little bag of money, take away those muddy old diamonds, ores and coffee beans and do the nasty old business of transforming their value through a little bit of processing ourselves.
 

Sheesh, sorry. Must've got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. Time for bed.
 

Welly

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 15, 2009 - 4:02pm

 MrsHobieJoe wrote:
Oh- just saw this.  Thanks peeps.  Sorry if I went a bit school marm.

 
{#Silenced} I'm still too scared to respond.

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 15, 2009 - 3:50pm

 hobiejoe wrote:

 
Oh good grief. On one hand you've got Lord (hereditary - all he had to do to get called "Lord" was to survive child-birth) Monckton spouting his swivel-eyed Hitler lunacies and on the other the Guardian pointing out that there are suggestions that responsibility for climate control should be moved from the UN to that hot-bed of Marxist-Leninism The World Bank.
 
The figure of 2% is, I understand, to be the higher estimated cost to global turnover (ie all of us) of beating climate change, which, compared to the projected costs of carrying on regardless sounds quite reasonable.
 
The Tobin tax - the tax that may be levied on internatonal financial transactions, not industrial or trade, is the earth shatteringly punitative rate of 0.05%. The fact that such a low rate could generate such huge incomes also highlights the insane amounts of electronic cash being shovelled around the system by the banks for very little social benefit yet generating colossal amounts of comission - you can bet your arse that each time a dealer passes on the dough a shitload more than 0.05% sticks on his fingers. Use this to fund research and development into carbon reducing technologies and you're nuturing and expanding a huge new industry, saving the planet and getting the pinstriped wankers on Wall Street and in the City of London to a) atone for getting us into this horrible financial mess after having money shovelled down their throats for the last thirty years and b) start paying their way in society from now on.
 
 

 
*edit* Well, at least that made me feel better.
 


 
These people are criminal.

I'd simply suggest that you and others investigate the World Bank and IMF.

If after you have done that and still put your blessing on them, I'd be surprised.

Regards

World Bank and IMF.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman.


MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 15, 2009 - 3:44pm

Funny that HJ, Callum and I all have the same view on Christopher Monckton although we all come from different political standpoints.  Some things are just universal.

The problem is that anything quoting him puts up an immediate "that idiot" flag in my mind that kind of loses the rest of the information.

edit- for those of you who think that I have the same political views as HJ- he didn't speak to me for a fornight in May after the last local elections and for the European parliament- again- totally different voting.


Manbird

Manbird Avatar

Location: Oroville, Ca
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 15, 2009 - 3:35pm

on sean's big cranium
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 84, 85, 86 ... 101, 102, 103  Next