quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Maybe we should start a movement to heavily promote Darwinism and quit trying to rescue every deathly ill S.O.B. on the planet. Oh yeah, that would not make me very popular.

I agree 100%. My woman thinks i'm an insensitive prick because everytime we watch one of those tv programs showing how they saved some retarded kid I say they should just let it die. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but we (society) needlessly waste valueable resources and they (the retarded kid that was saved) are generally a drain on society and contribute nothing of value (besides a warm fuzzy feeling when watching lifetime). That's just one example.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 they (the retarded kid that was saved) are generally a drain on society and contribute nothing of value

Are you calling Trig Palin worthless?

___________________

Given that no scientific experiment exists that could disprove the climate change hypothesis, I do think there is still room for healthy skepticism on the science, but that residual doubt, alone, does not seem to me to be enough to justify ignoring the evidence in favor of climate change as a matter of public policy.

Yet, while there is a wealth of scientific evidence supporting the inference that CO2 emissions will affect the climate, merely showing that a phenomenon exists does not suffice to demonstrate that it ought to be resisted and, further, that a particular means of resisting it is both reasonably likely to succeed and cost-justified.

I am open to arguments on these latter points, but so far I must observe that the arguments in favor of them appear conspicuous by their absence.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Are you calling Trig Palin worthless?

i guess i am

quote:

Originally posted by D-res Read: Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman The propaganda model they propose would illustrate the reasoning quite clearly.

please, for the enjoyment of us all, could you please identify which financial or corporate elites are “manufacturing consent” in regards to global warming news? The problem with people that think like you is that global warming isn’t in anybody’s interests, most certainly not those who have the most to lose by environmental reform. Since these people (read: corporations) are the same ones that you believe control the upper echelons of government and all mainstream media, to what goal are they manipulating the information in regards to GW science? How do they benefit from maintaining the man-made global warming zeitgeist, when in reality that zeitgeist is telling everyone that big business needs to change their habits?

What you have said makes exactly zero sense.

quote:

Originally posted by D-res Man-made global warming deniers akin to creationists? Theres plenty of evidence to suggest more variables than green house gas emissions as the driving force of climate change. You're obviously not looking. How many astrophysicists have to come out with data showing the correlation between solar activity and global temperature before you take them seriously? I'd say the Gore-esque alarmists are closer to creationsts. Their wild claims haven't and aren't coming to fruition, and its already been made clear that there was falsified information in "An Inconvenient Truth." Shouldn't the east coast be well on its way underwater by now? Its apparent its more of a political issue than good science, since many (tens of thousands) scientists don't agree.

“tens of thousands”? surely you would be able to point us to all the peer-reviewed articles that undermine accepted global warming science? For you to be so sure of yourself (considering the complexities of the science are far beyond what you are capable of understanding without intense study) there must be an equal amount of literature that supports your view? We’d all love to read it.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN please, for the enjoyment of us all, could you please identify which financial or corporate elites are “manufacturing consent” in regards to global warming news? The problem with people that think like you is that global warming isn’t in anybody’s interests, most certainly not those who have the most to lose by environmental reform. Since these people (read: corporations) are the same ones that you believe control the upper echelons of government and all mainstream media, to what goal are they manipulating the information in regards to GW science? How do they benefit from maintaining the man-made global warming zeitgeist, when in reality that zeitgeist is telling everyone that big business needs to change their habits? What you have said makes exactly zero sense.

You must be joking. The whole thing is a joke... what's going to happen is the companies that emit carbon now are going to take their operations overseas where there aren't penalties. So not only will we lose jobs, but the same shit will be emitted over in India that was previously being emitted here. AND, we'll end up being MORE dependant on importing energy, which is some serious ironny.

But let's take one major profiteer... the biggest alarmist of them all, Al Gore, who is a partner in a law firm that has invested $1 billion into 40 companies that will benefit from the legislation:

quote:

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore left the White House seven years ago with less than $2 million in assets, including a Virginia home and the family farm in Tennessee. Now he's making enough to put $35 million in hedge funds and other private partnerships. Gore invested the money with Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, California, firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products, according to a Feb. 1 securities filing. Capricorn was founded by billionaire Jeffrey Skoll, former president of EBay Inc. and an executive producer of Gore's Oscar-winning documentary film on global warming.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...hvg0&refer=home

Gore in 2008:

quote:

There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.

This is not referring to his non-profit business he loves to mention, these are investements he has PERSONAL interest in, and which Cap and Trade mandates would significanly increase he and his partners' portfolios. There are 4 climate lobbyists for every member of Congress by the way.

And how about the fact that his venture capital firm invested $6 million in "climate change software" that stands to turn BILLIONS in profit if the bill becomes law?

quote:

Al Gore’s venture capital firm has invested $6 million in a software company that stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation — further fueling controversy that Gore lied about his profiteering from cap-and-trade to Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee during testimony in April. Hara Software sells software to help track greenhouse gas emissions. The market for such software is now about $2.5 billion dollars in size, and is expected to grow by a factor of ten to $25 billion if cap-and-trade legislation is enacted, according to Hara CEO Amit Chatterjee. Kleiner Perkins, a venture capital firm in which Al Gore is a partner, invested in Hara just last year. Chatterjee told Reuters that, “This company would not have existed if Al Gore had not bought off on the idea.”

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11607

Read here for those in Congress, especially Barbara Boxer, who will profit GREATLY from the climate bill mandates... here's an excerpt:

quote:

Ms. Boxer expects to scoop up auction revenues of some $3.32 trillion by 2050. Yes, that’s trillion. Her friends in Congress are already salivating over this new pot of gold. The way Congress works, the most vicious floor fights won’t be over whether this is a useful tax to create, but over who gets what portion of the spoils. In a conference call with reporters last Thursday, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry explained that he was disturbed by the effects of global warming on “crustaceans” and so would be pursuing changes to ensure that New England lobsters benefit from some of the loot. …$802 billion would go for “relief” for low-income taxpayers… There’s also $190 billion to fund training for “green-collar jobs,” which are supposed to replace the jobs that will be lost in carbon-emitting industries. Another $288 billion would go to “wildlife adaptation,” whatever that means, and another $237 billion to the states for the same goal. Some $342 billion would be spent on international aid, $171 billion for mass transit, and untold billions for alternative energy and research – and we’re just starting. Ms. Boxer would only auction about half of the carbon allowances; she reserves the rest for politically favored supplicants. These groups might be Indian tribes (big campaign donors!), or states rewarded for “taking the lead” on emissions reductions like Ms. Boxer’s California. Those lucky winners would be able to sell those allowances for cash. The Senator estimates that the value of the handouts totals $3.42 trillion. For those keeping track, that’s more than $6.7 trillion in revenue handouts so far. The bill also tries to buy off businesses that might otherwise try to defeat the legislation. Thus carbon-heavy manufacturers like steel and cement will get $213 billion “to help them adjust,” while fossil-fuel utilities will get $307 billion in “transition assistance.” No less than $34 billion is headed to oil refiners. Given that all of these folks have powerful Senate friends, they will probably extract a larger ransom if cap and trade ever does become law.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...g2:r3:c0.153636

So, come on... let's stop pretending that politicinas desperately want to ram this bill through before it gets read because they genuinely care about saving the planet. You can't be this foolish.

As summed up in The American Consumer, "By creating tradable financial assets worth tens of billions of dollars for governments to distribute among their industries and plants and then monitor, a global cap-and-trade program also introduces powerful incentives to cheat by corrupt and radical governments. Corrupt governments will almost certainly distribute permits in ways that favor their business supporters and understate their actual energy use and emissions."

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss You must be joking. The whole thing is a joke... what's going to happen is the companies that emit carbon now are going to take their operations overseas where there aren't penalties. So not only will we lose jobs, but the same shit will be emitted over in India that was previously being emitted here. AND, we'll end up being MORE dependant on importing energy, which is some serious ironny.

im not really sure you understood what i said but what you've written here has nothing to do with anything i was discussing with d-res.

___________________

Who said that global warming + climate change was such a bad thing?

Apparently its good for evolution and species diversity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8115464.stm

Evolution faster when it's warmer

quote:

The results could help explain why the warm tropics are so species-rich Climate could have a direct effect on the speed of "molecular evolution" in mammals, according to a study. Researchers have found that, among pairs of mammals of the same species, the DNA of those living in warmer climates changes at a faster rate. These mutations - where one letter of the DNA code is substituted for another - are a first step in evolution. The study, reported in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, could help explain why the tropics are so species-rich. DNA can mutate and change imperceptibly every time a cell divides and makes a copy of itself. But when one of these mutations causes a change that is advantageous for the animal - for example, rendering it resistant to a particular disease - it is often "selected for", or passed down to the next few generations of that same species. Such changes, which create differences within a population but do not give rise to new species, are known as "microevolution". The idea that microevolution happens faster in warmer environments is not new. But this is the first time the effect has been shown in mammals, which regulate their own body temperature. "The result was unexpected," said Len Gillman from Auckland University of Technology, who led the study. "We have previously found a similar result for plant species and other groups have seen it in marine animals. But since these are 'ectotherms' - their body temperature is controlled directly by the environment - everyone assumed that the effect was caused by climate altering their metabolic rate." Scientists believe that this link between temperature and metabolic rate means that, in warmer climates, the germ cells that eventually develop into sperm and eggs divide more frequently. "An increase in cell division provides more opportunities for mutations in the population over a given time," explained Dr Gillman. "This increases the probability of advantageous mutations that are selected for within the species." 'Sister species' "We suspected the same effect might be happening in mammals, because seasonal changes affect the animals' activity," Dr Gillman told BBC News. Lemur Lemurs were one of the 130 pairs of closely related mammals investigated He and his team compared the DNA of 130 pairs of mammals, looking at genetically similar "sister species" - where each of the pair lived at a different latitude or elevation. They tracked changes in one gene that codes for a protein known as cytochrome b, comparing the same gene in each of the pair of mammals to a "reference" gene in a common ancestor. By looking for mutations in the DNA code for this gene - each point where one letter in the code was substituted for another - the researchers were able to see which of the two mammals had "microevolved" faster. Animals living in environments where the climate was warmer, had about 1.5 times more of these substitutions than the animals living in cooler environments. Dr Gillman explained that, at higher latitudes where environments are colder and less productive, animals often conserve their energy - hibernating or resting to reduce their metabolic activity. "In warmer climates annual metabolic activity is likely to be greater, so this will lead to more total cell divisions per year in the germline." These results support the idea that high tropical biodiversity is caused by faster rates of evolution in warmer climates.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im not really sure you understood what i said but what you've written here has nothing to do with anything i was discussing with d-res.

did you read the rest of the post? It was in response to your question of:

quote:

How do they benefit from maintaining the man-made global warming zeitgeist

... to which I provided several examples of those elites who will get stinkingly rich by passage of that legislation.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss did you read the rest of the post? It was in response to your question of: ... to which I provided several examples of those elites who will get stinkingly rich by passage of that legislation.

yeah, i read it. your examples are mere (irrelevant) drops in the ocean when compared to the wealth and power held in the hands of the elite powerhouses d-res believes control the world, and reality itself.

the fact of the matter is that the majority of big businesses (and probably business in general) have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by propagating the myths of man-made global warming.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the fact of the matter is that the majority of big businesses (and probably business in general) have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by propagating the myths of man-made global warming.

You think GE is moving towards all that "green" bullshit because that's what they believe in? Or is it because they get huge sums of money from the government to proceed in that direction?