Hari Sheldon, The Mule, and Global Warming

[shickingbrits]

What aspect of marginalize you would like me to understand you'll have to explain.

Deserts in three diverse regions which had been considered marginal lands are now in full bloom due to permaculture. Thorium, a marginal product, has been used to create energy and will be in the future, 1kg replacing 500,000,000 kg of coal. The marginal value of diamonds is enforced through monopolies.

If Duk wishes not to have children, he can marginalize himself out of existence. He would never be someone I trust, he would never inspire any confidence in me, nor would he be someone I lend my support to.

Duk, et al, are merely satanists in disguise. He doesn't believe that he is the problem, just the people who disagree with him. That is his choice. My choice is to not heed people who make bad choices.

Essentially the choice is this: we have the ability to create heaven on earth. He would rather not have it available to those he doesn't like. As such, according to his views, it can never come about. In carrying out his ideas, reducing the population to 50m (Climate Change teaches a population reduction to between 500,000,000 and 1,500,000,000, so he is in the extreme category) only those who are happy to destroy would be left.

Since it will never come about, what it really entails is self destruction. I can post the ideas of atheists, unbelievers, climate change freaks and they can ignore them, let others call them false. But the proof is in the pudding. Bill Gates can hold a meeting and say, we need to be more careful of the language we use (not change our concepts, but hide them better). But the concepts are still the same.

The concept suggests limiting the population. Bill Gates thinks Africa and Pakistan are good targets to limit the population. While a handful may agree with this, in the implementation, the majority would come to find it abhorrent and displace those who have the motivation towards their elimination.

I believe that Duk has the inalienable right to his perspective, and that the rest of the population has an inalienable right to protect themselves from Duks ideas. I don't think that Duk believes anything he says. Not to the point of suicide or denying himself children. In short, his ideas are no more than a Christians who tries to engage in jihad: because he is so right, he is justified in doing wrong things to perpetuate his rightness, even when it goes against that which makes him right. My father will continue to encourage his kids to have children, even though he thinks the world's population needs to be drastically reduced.

Hypocrite. Or lemming? Either way, not a very solid platform to promulgate an agenda from.

Is there some point where population increase is no longer desirable? Never. By the time we hit peak population, which Duk would probably say has been surpassed, which more moderate folk would say is 9 bn and which I say is triple the current population with existing tech, we will have already developed tech to sustain a further tripling.

I'm quite obviously not a republican (or a democrat). I neither hold with the idea that people engage in good works solely for money, in fact I hold the opposite position, that people engage in bad works solely for money. In another thread I suggested to some republicans that instead of cutting welfare, they be demanded to participate for the money they receive. You suggested this was a make work project, which I don't deny. But you failed to understand for who. It is not for the workers, but for the governing. Republicans say they can be employed, great, show me. Employ them. Get some net social benefit out of them. But that is not what they want. They want cops and prisons and homelessness and homeless goons to kick them around. They probably don't even understand that that is what they want, but it's what their desire entails. Its what their support helps to create.

Intentions are powerful. It is important to understand what you intend and why. Duk wishes what the labour built shall now be swept from under them and conveyed upon the victors in perpetuity. 50,000,000 is less than the 1%. I'm in there; if we're bidding, then I got a spot. A lot of people I know are in. But a lot of others are not. Thanks Duk, but I have other intentions.

What you have learned is a set of myths told by the victors throughout history. We are shown communist countries which had been war torn from the onset and then put most of their technical expertise to war. I'm not saying that communism would have succeeded had it been given a fair run, I'm just saying it wasn't given one.

We get these ideas of competition from birth. Great then let's compete. Global bodies decrease competition. All fifty states should be competing for the greatest social good of their state and openly comparing their success with their neighbours. Information should be openly shared so that a few guys gaining status from it don't conspire against the social welfare to maintain their position.

They have Duk scared of his own breathe. They feed him a line of nonsense and he gulps it whole. f*ck the IPCC and their damn fraud. f*ck those who reveal in their fear. If you enjoy your fear so much, go sky-diving and don't check your chute beforehand.

We are going to leave this mortal coil. The best we can do is engage in life as productively as possible while here. It can only be done with the intention to do so. Making the choice to believe in the load of crap that they do and lending support to destructive policy is to want that destruction. You make the choice for yourself and others. You create your own heaven and hell.

I was once a democrat, supported global warming, all of it. But then I actually used my brain. I realized what outcomes those ideas supported.

We will drive out pollution, poverty, war, as we drive out inequality. We will make space on the mountains, on the oceans and in the skies until we make space elsewhere. We will shuffle this mortal coil and hand on the torch and the lunatics will not wipe us out before they do themselves. The corporate scientists cannot compete with nature.

[BoganGod]

shillingbits are you being paid by the word by some billionaire futures trader trying to boost stock in a security company? Scare em good son, you get out thar boy and tell em tall stories. Make em so scared they will buy razor wire and landmines for a third floor apartment.

[shickingbrits]

Those who believe they can be saved by razor wire and land mines are already dead. You cannot save the dead as you can't kill what is alive.

[BoganGod]

Those who believe they can be saved by razor wire and land mines are already dead. You cannot save the dead as you can't kill what is alive.

Are you trying to impress the other children by pretending you are deep? You can't kill what is alive....... So you believe in immortality of consciousness then. Would you like to buy my timeshare condo on the south side of the west end of the moon.

[degaston]

Those who believe they can be saved by razor wire and land mines are already dead. You cannot save the dead as you can't kill what is alive.

[shickingbrits]

Would you like to stop massaging your own ego for long enough to make a useful statement?

[shickingbrits]

Degaston,

Your words are hollow, ideas pointless and ideals contrived falsehoods. You bask in ignorance while claiming truth. You don't know what you intend and yet shout it from the corners. You are obvious. You are weak. You are welcome.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's another good one:

What you have learned is a set of myths told by the victors throughout history. We are shown communist countries which had been war torn from the onset and then put most of their technical expertise to war. I'm not saying that communism would have succeeded had it been given a fair run, I'm just saying it wasn't given one.

[shickingbrits]

I get it. You think Vietnam won. I disagree. The folks who got us there definitely won. They got everything they wanted. Vietnam was left with their own government but utterly destroyed. It's like as if a school yard bully demanded my lunch money, got it, kicked my ass, but I got in a few good blows. I certainly would say I won.

[tzor]

Climate change is a real thing. The way Gore and Clinton milked it for votes, pretending that giving more power to big government is the solution to this problem, is a fraud. The existence of an expoitive fraud does not in any way negate the existence of the thing being exploited.

First of all what is "climate change?" Changes in climate is a real thing. There are many factors by man that can impact that change. Classical "Climate Change" is limited to one and only one factor, CO2.

Let us assume, for the moment, that CO2 actually has significant impacts on the changes on the climate (which is far from proven). China produces 25% of all the CO2 emissions. The biggest, most effective solution is to have them reduce emissions and the easiest way is for them to technologically evolve and thus eliminate the need for massive burning of coal.

Instead we go crazy over the types of light bulbs people can use and go out of out way to keep people in Africa in the dark ages. (Because, the average African hospital can't afford enough solar panels to keep the entire hospital powered; just enough to keep the refrigerator where the must refrigerate drugs are stored operating.)

So it's more than votes; it's the power hungry people longing for total control over others lives; people who are totally willing to throw burdens on others that they won't impose on themselves (because socialism is for the people, not the socialists).

It is so extreme that I would oppose any "solution" on general principle, because the person who is proposing it is probably out to make a buck.

And please, don't invoke "scientists" here. As a former physics major I'm completely disgusted with the ass kissing that goes on these days in order to get government funding. The local national lab now has people in political ads how their incumbent congressman gave them money. Real scientists eat ramen noodles. Fake ones fudge numbers in order to make their supporters happy so they can live high on the hog.

People love to proclaim things scientific gospel. Sorry, it ain't so. Here is another example with a different gospel. This involved CFC and the ozone hole over the Antarctic.

Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and co-founder of the Weather Channel Joe D’Aleo says he thinks that the Antarctic ozone hole might simply be a permanent feature of the Earth that we only discovered when we went looking for the posited ozone reduction:

The data shows a lot of variability and no real trends after the Montreal protocol banned CFCs. The models had predicted a partial recovery by now. Later scientists adjusted their models and pronounced the recovery would take decades. It may be just another failed alarmist prediction.

Remember we first found the ozone hole when satellites that measure ozone were first available and processed (1985). It is very likely to have been there forever, varying year to year and decade to decade as solar cycles and volcanic events affected high latitude winter vortex strength. (Source)

There are far more important things than CO2 emissions. There are probably far more effective solutions than the ones being proposed. This is not only wrong, it's wrong squared.

[AndyDufresne]

It is so extreme that I would oppose any "solution" on general principle, because the person who is proposing it is probably out to make a buck.

It's funny that you say this here, since your source, Joseph D’Aleo, seems to be linked to major funding from the Heartland Institute and the Koch Brothers which pays for climate change skeptics. So someone is certainly indeed out to make a buck!

And please, don't invoke "scientists" here. As a former physics major I'm completely disgusted with the ass kissing that goes on these days in order to get government funding. The local national lab now has people in political ads how their incumbent congressman gave them money. Real scientists eat ramen noodles. Fake ones fudge numbers in order to make their supporters happy so they can live high on the hog.

People love to proclaim things scientific gospel. Sorry, it ain't so. Here is another example with a different gospel. This involved CFC and the ozone hole over the Antarctic.

Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and co-founder of the Weather Channel Joe D’Aleo says he thinks that the Antarctic ozone hole might simply be a permanent feature of the Earth that we only discovered when we went looking for the posited ozone reduction:

The data shows a lot of variability and no real trends after the Montreal protocol banned CFCs. The models had predicted a partial recovery by now. Later scientists adjusted their models and pronounced the recovery would take decades. It may be just another failed alarmist prediction.

Remember we first found the ozone hole when satellites that measure ozone were first available and processed (1985). It is very likely to have been there forever, varying year to year and decade to decade as solar cycles and volcanic events affected high latitude winter vortex strength. (Source)

There are far more important things than CO2 emissions. There are probably far more effective solutions than the ones being proposed. This is not only wrong, it's wrong squared.

The ozone hole is so permanent -- it is actually recovering!?!


In summary,

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

--Andy

[Dukasaur]

Climate change is a real thing. The way Gore and Clinton milked it for votes, pretending that giving more power to big government is the solution to this problem, is a fraud. The existence of an expoitive fraud does not in any way negate the existence of the thing being exploited.

First of all what is "climate change?" Changes in climate is a real thing. There are many factors by man that can impact that change. Classical "Climate Change" is limited to one and only one factor, CO2.

Let us assume, for the moment, that CO2 actually has significant impacts on the changes on the climate (which is far from proven). China produces 25% of all the CO2 emissions. The biggest, most effective solution is to have them reduce emissions and the easiest way is for them to technologically evolve and thus eliminate the need for massive burning of coal.

Instead we go crazy over the types of light bulbs people can use and go out of out way to keep people in Africa in the dark ages. (Because, the average African hospital can't afford enough solar panels to keep the entire hospital powered; just enough to keep the refrigerator where the must refrigerate drugs are stored operating.)

I don't disagree with any of that.

So it's more than votes; it's the power hungry people longing for total control over others lives; people who are totally willing to throw burdens on others that they won't impose on themselves (because socialism is for the people, not the socialists).

It is so extreme that I would oppose any "solution" on general principle, because the person who is proposing it is probably out to make a buck.

That makes no sense. If you have an illness, do you refuse to buy medicine because the pharmacy is out to make a buck? If you are hungry, do you refuse to buy food because the grocer is out to make a buck?

People will try to profit from all trends, both good and bad. The fact that people are profiting from green energy, etc., is truth-neutral. It tells us absolutely nothing about whether said energy is good or bad.

And please, don't invoke "scientists" here. As a former physics major I'm completely disgusted with the ass kissing that goes on these days in order to get government funding. The local national lab now has people in political ads how their incumbent congressman gave them money. Real scientists eat ramen noodles. Fake ones fudge numbers in order to make their supporters happy so they can live high on the hog.

It has always been thus. As far back as Euclid and Archimedes, scientists have had to depend on the patronage of the rich and powerful. This leads to some ethically debatable situations to be sure. Most scientists at some point or another are faced with tough choices between preserving their scientific objectivity or serving the interests of their patrons. The fact that science continues to advance is proof that on balance, enough of the objectivity is saved to get the basic job done. Tycho Brahe had to prostitute his science providing astrological portents to Rudolf II. He still found enough spare time to catalogue the movements of the planets and advance the truth.

The scientific community is robust enough to survive the fact that the majority of its members have to prostitute themselves to some government or corporation. It's inherent in the very structure of peer review that the distortions demanded by the patrons get filtered out, and the truth comes through. The work of any individual scientist may be suspect, but the aggregate work of the bulk of the scientists is not.

[Dukasaur]

You cannot disprove climate science by pointing at the fraudulent way governments exploit it, any more than you can disprove biochemistry by pointing at the fraudulent way food processing megacorps exploit it.

Yeah, but you can't blame people for scoffing at Al Gore can you? And not wanting to go along with those very fraudulent machinations can you? Nor can you blame people for being skeptical because though you say climate change is a real thing and we should be concerned, you can't say with any certainty what the consequences are. No one knows. But if you question that, and there is no reason not to question, why should people be met with- "Earth hater! Baby killer!" etc etc. Do you think that actually helps?

I don't disagree with skepticism, ever. By all means, question. I don't know who's calling you a baby killer, but it isn't me.

Does anyone really know what the consequences are? No, not with any acceptable level of certainty. Global warming may indeed be a good thing. It may lead to a flourishing world. The vast frozen wastelands of the north may support forests and splendid parks once all the permafrost melts. On the other hand, once the permafrost melts, there may be enough clathrates opened up to lead us into a tailspin of horror, into a scenario like the great Permian extinction.

We just don't know for sure, and while positive outcomes are conceivable, the possible negative outcomes are serious enough to frighten people with good reason.

Nonetheless, while there may be doubt about the outcome, there's no doubt about the core: the earth is rapidly warming, and humans are a large part of the reason why (and no, it's not just about how much CO2 our tailpipes spew out. It includes many other things, like the forests we bulldoze). On those basic points the evidence is strong enough that one can get annoyed with people who try to deny it, for all the same reasons one gets annoyed with people who try to deny evolution or a heliocentric solar system.

When the Al Gore types of the culture start preaching about how we are all going to die I can't help but roll my eyes. It's not my fault some of the most untrustworthy, lying and greedy individuals have become the spokesmen for the culture. Doom and gloom only work on the weak minded. Hell, Al Gore might be right in some strange alternate universe, but because he's a piece of shit he is just a modern day Cassandra. Forever cursed to know the future but be such an asshole that no one believes him.

Maybe. I'm not troubled by the problem of the good or evil that rests within Al Gore's soul, and to be honest I don't know much about him, because I really don't care all that much.

[shickingbrits]

Andy,

Who is funding "climate change"? What is the funding doing?

http://publicintelligence.net/gef-loan- ... t-project/

It would seem that a lot of money is being used to prevent traditional, sustainable practices from taking place.

What are those folks going to do? Move to the city and live in slums, join the destructive practices of the city and the land of their forefathers will be closed to them and available to a select few.

Is there no better way? Not if you're a bank or the UN. They are simply pursuing the policy that best fits their goals.

Well then, what are their goals?

[shickingbrits]

So "it's not just about how much CO2", but let's just kind of say it is and kind of provide support to those who are saying it is and continually experience the lose of freedom while they do their utmost not to solve the problem.

Thorium will be up and running soon. What you going to do then Mr "I want 99% of the old gone"?

[BoganGod]

Degaston,

Your words are hollow, ideas pointless and ideals contrived falsehoods. You bask in ignorance while claiming truth. You don't know what you intend and yet shout it from the corners. You are obvious. You are weak. You are welcome.

Someone has a crush. Shickingdicks and degaston sitting in a tree. K I SS I N G

[degaston]

Would you like to stop massaging your own ego for long enough to make a useful statement?

Look, I'm flattered that you've taken such an interest in my posts, and while I find it completely understandable that you would eagerly await my views on this (or any other) subject, I'm afraid I cannot say that the reverse is true. I've already said that I'm not really interested in "debating" this subject. I'm here mainly for my own amusement, and I'm not inclined to try to convince you that my view on this is correct when I already know that you are determined not to listen. It's really not that important to me what you think about this.

I do occasionally enjoy pointing out the flaws in the arguments made by others, such as when tzor and phatscotty tried to use a thoroughly discredited Daily Mail article to prove that the ice caps are growing rather than shrinking. And when someone posts something that is so completely inane that no rebuttal is really necessary, I may just quote it and add a silly picture to draw attention to it for the amusement of others.

Degaston,

Your words are hollow, ideas pointless and ideals contrived falsehoods. You bask in ignorance while claiming truth. You don't know what you intend and yet shout it from the corners. You are obvious. You are weak. You are welcome.

[degaston]

Degaston,

Your words are hollow, ideas pointless and ideals contrived falsehoods. You bask in ignorance while claiming truth. You don't know what you intend and yet shout it from the corners. You are obvious. You are weak. You are welcome.

Someone has a crush. Shickingdicks and degaston sitting in a tree. K I SS I N G

Yeah, I noticed. I guess I just have too much shicksappeal. (Yes, I know the term applies to women, but shegetzappeal doesn't really fit the situation.)

[shickingbrits]

Sorry Degaston, the first quote of mine you used was meant for Bogan.

I understand that you are not interested in debate. You have no ground to stand on. I understand you hold these views for your own amusement, because you have no rational basis of holding them. You don't even know the base unit being calculated, nor the limit of the calculation. How do I know that you don't know? Because the climate model makers don't disclose the data. The available data states that if CO2 were a basketball hoop, then it could be 20 feet tall or 10 feet underground.

Meanwhile, billions are being spent enacting Agenda 21 circumventing national sovereignty, democracy, private property. Is probably best that folks don't make their own decisions and rather rely on a government which imprisons 800,000 folks a year for consuming what the government itself has patented as a medicine. A government which blatantly ignores a viable solution to their supposed problem and instead thinks the only way to solve it by increasing their control of the population.

You are a spurious poison that cares for nothing but your imagined superiority. Guess what, everyone imagines they are superior. What does that make you...delusional enough to believe it and ignorant enough not to question it.

I'm determined not to listen? If you can't tell me the base unit, then I must conclude that you don't really care about the facts. The facts are overwhelming. Water is by far the greatest greenhouse gas, by far holds the most heat from the sun and is utterly ignored by scientists, even when their fellows tell them conclusively that water mitigates Climate Change and proponents of Climate Change willfully ignore this, that they are not interested in facts.

You are equally as obviously not interested in solutions, or what agendas your support is driving.

You are just a climate change junkie who reiterates nonsense.

[tzor]

It's funny that you say this here, since your source, Joseph D’Aleo, seems to be linked to major funding from the Heartland Institute and the Koch Brothers which pays for climate change skeptics. So someone is certainly indeed out to make a buck!

The liberal (in case of emergency break glass) excuse: when all fails, blame the Koch brothers. So how do they "make a buck" over denial? (Now the Keystone pipeline might net them $100 billion, but that's not a part of the climate change problem, is it?)

It is so extreme that I would oppose any "solution" on general principle, because the person who is proposing it is probably out to make a buck.

That makes no sense. If you have an illness, do you refuse to buy medicine because the pharmacy is out to make a buck? If you are hungry, do you refuse to buy food because the grocer is out to make a buck?

It makes perfect sense. If you have an illness and someone comes in to sell you "medicine" how do you know he's not a snake oil salesman? How can you trust him that the medicine will actually help? How can you know if the medicine won't do more harm than good? Modern medicine is based on profit, but that profit is countered by a third party that forces them to prove the medicine's effectiveness and understand all possible side effects before it can even make the pharmacy. This isn't the case with global warming. We cannot prove that if we were to cut coal plant emissions by X% we will get result Y. We know the economic impact on the nation of the action, we know the possible effect of shutting down vital power generation facilities in what might possibly be a very cold winter this year. Somehow I don't think making the United States a third world power grid is going to solve global warming. (Moreover, as I have pointed out, if you mess with the reliability of the power grid, industries will shift to local generation and result in MORE CO2 emissions, not less, at the expense of people in general.

[Neoteny]

Wait. What?

[AndyDufresne]

Andy,

Who is funding "climate change"? What is the funding doing?

http://publicintelligence.net/gef-loan- ... t-project/

It would seem that a lot of money is being used to prevent traditional, sustainable practices from taking place.

What are those folks going to do? Move to the city and live in slums, join the destructive practices of the city and the land of their forefathers will be closed to them and available to a select few.

Is there no better way? Not if you're a bank or the UN. They are simply pursuing the policy that best fits their goals.

Well then, what are their goals?

I never said interests on the side weren't funding things as well. Tzor seemed to suggest that his side was clean, which was silly.


--Andy

[shickingbrits]

My father worked for Conservation International at the time (2004). They are a group of hypocrites. He is a good sheep, unable to question anything. He arranged the VIP tours, of course they have no non-VIP tours. Make a decent donation and you get an all expense paid tax deductible holiday to lands that were robbed from indigenous peoples by offering loans to their compliant governments.

He is a sweetie. But boy does he get mad when talking about the slums and me pointing out his part in creating them. He can't see past the evil oil companies to the evil green companies.

It's all nonsense and I'm sure most of you realize that to some extent, but fear of being a freak, i.e. me, is a powerful thing. The truth will out.

[tzor]

I never said interests on the side weren't funding things as well. Tzor seemed to suggest that his side was clean, which was silly.

I would never want to suggest that one side was clean.

Speaking of clean, I always wondered about "clean coal." Do they really mean if you pick up "clean coal" you won't get your hands dirty?

[BoganGod]

Would you like to stop massaging your own ego for long enough to make a useful statement?

Look, I'm flattered that you've taken such an interest in my posts, and while I find it completely understandable that you would eagerly await my views on this (or any other) subject, I'm afraid I cannot say that the reverse is true. I've already said that I'm not really interested in "debating" this subject. I'm here mainly for my own amusement, and I'm not inclined to try to convince you that my view on this is correct when I already know that you are determined not to listen. It's really not that important to me what you think about this.

I do occasionally enjoy pointing out the flaws in the arguments made by others, such as when tzor and phatscotty tried to use a thoroughly discredited Daily Mail article to prove that the ice caps are growing rather than shrinking. And when someone posts something that is so completely inane that no rebuttal is really necessary, I may just quote it and add a silly picture to draw attention to it for the amusement of others.

Degaston,

Your words are hollow, ideas pointless and ideals contrived falsehoods. You bask in ignorance while claiming truth. You don't know what you intend and yet shout it from the corners. You are obvious. You are weak. You are welcome.

+1 great pic. Have thought of shittingfits like a homophobe. Hating what he is, so bashing that which he does not have the courage to do, even though his very soul calls out to indulge.