Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[russtafa]

talk shit Trish you don't think an ice age would be more harmful to to north America ? i know you are loopy and same go's for greenie pals but ,an ice age is better than global warming?

[Ben]

Even Margaret Thatcher -- Margaret Thatcher!!!!!!!!!! -- believes in the science of global warming. I mean, she's the Queen of Neoliberalism. But believes in global warming. Yes! Thatcher!!!!



And remember ol' Maggie loathes so-called socialism:

[Ben]

Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom --

[russtafa]

i don't give a fuck what that crazy old bat believes in.i think that an ice age would be far more damaging than global warming.if global warming fends of an ice age i say that's great

[Ben]

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Ben;1089569]Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom --

Ben, you are wrong.

If you look at the environmental movement historically, you could never argue that it is or has ever been associated with communism in the way you suggest -and not just because, to take one example, the USSR's record on environmental management was so poor.

Just in your own country the most powerful environmental groups for the last century have been the Sierra Club (1892) the National Audobon Society (1905) and the Wilderness Society (1935) all of whom would be startled, and probably offended to be called Communists.

Ralph Nader may have started as a 'consumer rights' advocate, but his early campaigns had environmental issues such as clean air at their core, and he has always been one of those 'radicals' who wanted the existing system to perform better and get people to make it work better, rather than trying to overthrow it.

Some environmental activists are portrayed as being left-wing, anarchists, and so on- but if you look more closely at the profiles of the people who take direct action against oil rigs, Japanese whalers, and have attempted to 'seize' power stations, their antipathy to 'the state' is not so far removed from the alleged phobia of 'big government' possessed by Tea Party and other supposedly 'right-wing' ideologues and activists. Some people after all have criticised activists for being 'Environmental fascists' because of their single-minded focus and indifference to debate, and if anything the holier-than-thou attititude some activists in Greenpeace and fringe groups have has alienated more people than it has converted to the cause.

The 'neo-liberals' you refer to are mostly concerned about taxation, not the science, which, like Russtafa, they do not understand, and do not intend to understand.

The real issue here is resource management, and it always has been: how we, as human societies manage the natural resources on which we depend to live: earth, water, air and fire -and the things we have created through industry, for example, man-made carbons, industrial chemicals, and nuclear waste. Of all these issues, water is so fundamental I find it hard to believe that this thread has lasted as long as it has when the extinction of life on an earth without water would seem to be inevitable -yet water is not the central topic of the day, although I suppose it could be in 10 years time if the populations of Lima in Peru, and most of the Yemen have to re-locate because there is no water left.

Maybe we could organise an airlift and the boats, and re-locate them in Australia.

Ps, describing Margaret Thatcher as 'the Queen if Neo-Liberalism' is one of the daftest things you have said, and that's saying something. Maybe you should look at her record before making such inflated claims.

[russtafa]

[quote=Stavros;1089623]

Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom --

Ben, you are wrong.

If you look at the environmental movement historically, you could never argue that it is or has ever been associated with communism in the way you suggest -and not just because, to take one example, the USSR's record on environmental management was so poor.

Just in your own country the most powerful environmental groups for the last century have been the Sierra Club (1892) the National Audobon Society (1905) and the Wilderness Society (1935) all of whom would be startled, and probably offended to be called Communists.

Ralph Nader may have started as a 'consumer rights' advocate, but his early campaigns had environmental issues such as clean air at their core, and he has always been one of those 'radicals' who wanted the existing system to perform better and get people to make it work better, rather than trying to overthrow it.

Some environmental activists are portrayed as being left-wing, anarchists, and so on- but if you look more closely at the profiles of the people who take direct action against oil rigs, Japanese whalers, and have attempted to 'seize' power stations, their antipathy to 'the state' is not so far removed from the alleged phobia of 'big government' possessed by Tea Party and other supposedly 'right-wing' ideologues and activists. Some people after all have criticised activists for being 'Environmental fascists' because of their single-minded focus and indifference to debate, and if anything the holier-than-thou attititude some activists in Greenpeace and fringe groups have has alienated more people than it has converted to the cause.

The 'neo-liberals' you refer to are mostly concerned about taxation, not the science, which, like Russtafa, they do not understand, and do not intend to understand.

The real issue here is resource management, and it always has been: how we, as human societies manage the natural resources on which we depend to live: earth, water, air and fire -and the things we have created through industry, for example, man-made carbons, industrial chemicals, and nuclear waste. Of all these issues, water is so fundamental I find it hard to believe that this thread has lasted as long as it has when the extinction of life on an earth without water would seem to be inevitable -yet water is not the central topic of the day, although I suppose it could be in 10 years time if the populations of Lima in Peru, and most of the Yemen have to re-locate because there is no water left.

Maybe we could organise an airlift and the boats, and re-locate them in Australia.

Ps, describing Margaret Thatcher as 'the Queen if Neo-Liberalism' is one of the daftest things you have said, and that's saying something. Maybe you should look at her record before making such inflated claims.

no they are not commies they are greenies or today's answer to the LUDITES

[trish]

talk shit Trish you don't think an ice age would be more harmful to to north America ? i know you are loopy and same go's for greenie pals but ,an ice age is better than global warming?

So where did you get the idea it's a choice? Once more, look at your time scales.

Anthropocentric climate warming is occurring now with significant measurable increases spanning just decades. Within a few hundred years or less the consequences will be drought, more violent weather events, disappearance of glaciers and sea ice, the rise of sea levels, shift and disappearance of arable lands, and major extinctions. We are already experiencing the effects of greenhouse induced energy imbalance. I'm not saying we should do anything about it, which is the greenie position. I'm not a greenie. I'm simply presenting the science.

Ice age cycles span a period of 20,000 years. At the very earliest the next ice age 1500 years away. We'll have roasted to death by then if we do nothing about greenhouse gasses. If we don't solve the problem of climate warming, we won't be around to even face the next ice age.

On an obstacle course you sometimes have to craw under [a] barbed wire fence with bullets whizzing over you head and then you have to jump a hurdle. Jumping at the wrong time can be fatal. Not that I'm giving you any advice here. Just saying what'll happen if you jump at an inopportune time.

[Ben]

[quote=Stavros;1089623]

Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom --

Ben, you are wrong.

If you look at the environmental movement historically, you could never argue that it is or has ever been associated with communism in the way you suggest -and not just because, to take one example, the USSR's record on environmental management was so poor.

Just in your own country the most powerful environmental groups for the last century have been the Sierra Club (1892) the National Audobon Society (1905) and the Wilderness Society (1935) all of whom would be startled, and probably offended to be called Communists.

Ralph Nader may have started as a 'consumer rights' advocate, but his early campaigns had environmental issues such as clean air at their core, and he has always been one of those 'radicals' who wanted the existing system to perform better and get people to make it work better, rather than trying to overthrow it.

Some environmental activists are portrayed as being left-wing, anarchists, and so on- but if you look more closely at the profiles of the people who take direct action against oil rigs, Japanese whalers, and have attempted to 'seize' power stations, their antipathy to 'the state' is not so far removed from the alleged phobia of 'big government' possessed by Tea Party and other supposedly 'right-wing' ideologues and activists. Some people after all have criticised activists for being 'Environmental fascists' because of their single-minded focus and indifference to debate, and if anything the holier-than-thou attititude some activists in Greenpeace and fringe groups have has alienated more people than it has converted to the cause.

The 'neo-liberals' you refer to are mostly concerned about taxation, not the science, which, like Russtafa, they do not understand, and do not intend to understand.

The real issue here is resource management, and it always has been: how we, as human societies manage the natural resources on which we depend to live: earth, water, air and fire -and the things we have created through industry, for example, man-made carbons, industrial chemicals, and nuclear waste. Of all these issues, water is so fundamental I find it hard to believe that this thread has lasted as long as it has when the extinction of life on an earth without water would seem to be inevitable -yet water is not the central topic of the day, although I suppose it could be in 10 years time if the populations of Lima in Peru, and most of the Yemen have to re-locate because there is no water left.

Maybe we could organise an airlift and the boats, and re-locate them in Australia.

Ps, describing Margaret Thatcher as 'the Queen if Neo-Liberalism' is one of the daftest things you have said, and that's saying something. Maybe you should look at her record before making such inflated claims.

[Ben]

[quote=Stavros;1089623]

Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom --

Ben, you are wrong.

If you look at the environmental movement historically, you could never argue that it is or has ever been associated with communism in the way you suggest -and not just because, to take one example, the USSR's record on environmental management was so poor.

Just in your own country the most powerful environmental groups for the last century have been the Sierra Club (1892) the National Audobon Society (1905) and the Wilderness Society (1935) all of whom would be startled, and probably offended to be called Communists.

Ralph Nader may have started as a 'consumer rights' advocate, but his early campaigns had environmental issues such as clean air at their core, and he has always been one of those 'radicals' who wanted the existing system to perform better and get people to make it work better, rather than trying to overthrow it.

Some environmental activists are portrayed as being left-wing, anarchists, and so on- but if you look more closely at the profiles of the people who take direct action against oil rigs, Japanese whalers, and have attempted to 'seize' power stations, their antipathy to 'the state' is not so far removed from the alleged phobia of 'big government' possessed by Tea Party and other supposedly 'right-wing' ideologues and activists. Some people after all have criticised activists for being 'Environmental fascists' because of their single-minded focus and indifference to debate, and if anything the holier-than-thou attititude some activists in Greenpeace and fringe groups have has alienated more people than it has converted to the cause.

The 'neo-liberals' you refer to are mostly concerned about taxation, not the science, which, like Russtafa, they do not understand, and do not intend to understand.

The real issue here is resource management, and it always has been: how we, as human societies manage the natural resources on which we depend to live: earth, water, air and fire -and the things we have created through industry, for example, man-made carbons, industrial chemicals, and nuclear waste. Of all these issues, water is so fundamental I find it hard to believe that this thread has lasted as long as it has when the extinction of life on an earth without water would seem to be inevitable -yet water is not the central topic of the day, although I suppose it could be in 10 years time if the populations of Lima in Peru, and most of the Yemen have to re-locate because there is no water left.

Maybe we could organise an airlift and the boats, and re-locate them in Australia.

Ps, describing Margaret Thatcher as 'the Queen if Neo-Liberalism' is one of the daftest things you have said, and that's saying something. Maybe you should look at her record before making such inflated claims.