it's very simple. what is the first argument of this whole debate? Climate is changing or not-changing? obviously no one first stood up and said "Hey, the climate is not changing". and there must some reason the first person shouted "Hey, the climate is changing". Instead of waiting for a mathematical proof that climate change is gonna be disastrous, we should trust our instincts, whatever they say.
@dodger, I don't know where you're getting your info from (daily mail or wsj has recent articles that were dishonest and debunked) but the last 10 years have at least 9 of the hottest in 132 yrs according to NASA, IPCC, and the Met Office in the U.K.
I'm not sure wether global warming is real or not but I do think that the world actually has to warm for the theory to be worth anything at all. 15 years and counting now and no statistically signifigant warming.
“Science is now all-but-settled on glob. warm., convincing new evidence demonstrates, pointing to cosmic rays & the sun - not human activit. - as the dominant controller of climate.
CERN remains too afraid of offending its gov’t masters to admit its success. It decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby & oth. team membs. to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” & to downplay the results.””
Nuclear power thought up global warming after Chernobyl. After the world started cooling in 1998 they changed to climate change. Biologically impossible meaningless fiction
Climate change was fiction from nuclear power, after the world started cooling in 1998. Based on a biologically impossible increase of carbon dioxide in the air: plants metabolise carbon dioxide to support life on earth.
I recommend for anyone who hasn't heard about it, researching a 'Resource-Based Economy'. There are some interesting ideas there about what a 'green-economy' may look like (:
@scientiaarsvita1 - The average Joe might not be an expert but nothing stops them from finding out more about how things work - you don't need to be a rocket scientist to look things up and learn for yourself how everything fits together. If one person says one thing and another one says something else do your own research to figure out for yourself which is right.
@PwNa93 - Seems similar ... the ideas on both sides ultimately lead to a very similar outcome. Same thing different packaging.
No, you don't need to be a rocket scientist, but it probably help if you were a scientist in a relevant field. I don't know why I would be better at understanding this then people who study this type of thing. They may be wrong, but their case is likely going to be better than ours.
@mellamosean I didn't say the scientists are wrong, nor that their case isn't good - I'm just saying that the average Joe should start applying themselves to learn more about a subject if they're confused about which side is right. People who are willing to swallow whatever others tell them based only on what they hear have only themselves to blame for any incorrect understandings they might have. I'm just advocating a little bit of critical thinking and self education. Like u say - Google it.
@AnnoyedDragon - the only annoying thing is when people think they are caught between two equally feasible options when in fact they simply have to make a choice between reason and wisdom of science and foolishness and ignorance of superstition of the general public and politicians :(
A few simple google searches an you will find the scientists largely accept it. I'm yet to come across anything suggesting otherwise, so where are you hearing or seeing this?
There are only two groups when it comes to global warming, those who believe and those who don't, and they both think you're an idiot for not believing exactly like them.
This video included.
And then we, the general none scientific population, are put in the middle and pulled between these two extremes.
No one knows who to believe, because both sides are producing conflicting information and accusing the other side of spreading propaganda. It is very annoying.
@AnnoyedDragon - Your annoyance is shared by many people. Here are things to consider: Scientists are generally not motivated by money. If they were, they would be in business! They are too irascible to conspire. They would love to make their name by overturning a commonly held misconception if they had the evidence for it. So, anyone who says that scientists are conspiring is not credible.
I recommend youtube climate videos by greenman3610. He's entertaining, concise, and accurate.
There are scientists saying there is climate change and there are scientists saying there isn't. With both sides saying the other is spreading propaganda.
As a average Joe who isn't an expert, you don't know who to trust. Because both sides can present scientific information they argue unquestionable supports their side of the argument.
@scientiaarsvita1 Read "The Father of Spin" if you want historical proof that scientists can be used to form a "scientific consensus" for almost any belief.
@mellamosean The problem is I see interests on both sides. There isn't some selfless group that is just looking at what the data says, both sides have an agenda.
The anti GW corporate interests are obvious. But most people don't recognise that politicians love global warming. All the sudden there is this demand for economic and social change. An excuse to create new markets, new taxes, something to outdo the opposition in.
These green taxes and investments give politics a reason to push it.
I'm sorry, but even if is some agenda on the side accepting GW, I don't think it would be as universal as the support for the theory. Look what wikipedia says about scientific opinion on GW.
@mellamosean Again, both sides claim the evidence is in their favour; and it is the other side spreading propaganda. The political power pushing for climate change being real, could simply be doing so for the creation of a green tech bubble.
In the same way that some corporations are against GW because it would hurt their profits, government would benefit greatly from global warming being real. So they're expected to push it.
Money and politics need to get out of climate science.
"No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions." wiki
@mellamosean Wiki isn't exactly a reliable source.
That said, even if you used some official and trustworthy source, there is far too much money and interests involved to trust anyone.
It doesn't help that they stated that questioning GW is a good way to end your scientific career, which is hardly ideal when you are looking for transparency.
We have money grubbing corps on one side and manipulative power hungry politicians on the other. I don't know who to trust, so I say bugger them both.
well republicans largely deny global warming, so only half (give or take) of the politicians accept it, yet the scientific community is much more united; if you think politicians are influencing scientists around the world, why is it that republicans and other deniers seem to have no little or no influence on scientists? If you don't accept that the scientific community is in agreement, we can start looking at the numbers reflected by surveys.
I'd say the rational thing to do in a case like this is to accept the consensus of the experts. In this case, that would mean anyone who actually IS a climatologist or a scientist in a related field. Among this group the consensus is pretty clear.
This isn't a guarantee the consensus couldn't be wrong, but science and the scientific establishment has a pretty good record.
Would you accept the opinion of the dissenting 3% if it was something like surgery?
@AnnoyedDragon You must be joking, do you really see a conflict between what some politicians and public laymen (on this subject) say and what 99% of the scientific community say? If so, do you have a problem deciding on evolution also? A changing environment is a fact, supported by massive data from dossen of different fields, it might not be caused by humans, but that would not change the problem at hand, and the actions we need to engage ourself in.
@Alabasterocean I don't appreciate the suggestion that just because I notice that green tech is the biggest economic bubble politicians could possibility hope for, that I'm some sort of anti scientist reject.
I thoroughly recognise climate change, which is a redundant statement; because the climate is always changing. It suggests it was at some equilibrium that was broken at some point, which is nonsense. Ice core samples show heating and cooling periods in Earth's history.
My problem is there are interests in pushing climate change as being solely the cause of humans, and all we need to do to fix it is to hike taxes and consume/construct vast amounts of ineffective and expensive green technology.
One volcano erruption releases more carbon than humans ever could. Yet some rich idiot is going fly around the world to guilt trip poor people into taking less baths, while his heated swimming pool is waiting for him back home.
if we want a green economy, it needs to be global, or it wont change a thing in the long run.
Discussing the implementation of a global resource based economy is the only seriously starting point for any debate addressing climate change (as well as a long series of other issues).
In he past humans "managed" climate change (global cooling) by migration but the world now is too densely populated for such strategy. Here in canada we encourage immigration from low energy intensive areas thus accelerating energy/entropy "development".
The real breakthrough will be human pop crash.
Humans cannot create or use tools (especially language) except to irrevocably destroy nature.
The market system that has led and continues to lead to the greatest improvements in the history of mankind. Is it perfect? No. But, there isn't a better system. Look at the millions and millions whose lives have improved the last few decades. It wasn't from top-down interventions. It was from embracing free markets with spontaneous order. I'm sick of the guys that boo boo the world and don't understand the things that make it better, but think they can direct things as a benevolent autocrat.
"The market is, by far, the best balancing mechanism there is"
You mean the mechanism which has led to the greatest levels of inequality the world has ever seen, destroyed social mobility and which regularly crashes and breaks down causing untold misery to millions? Jesus dream big why don't you...
@RobRay81 : indeed!! a balancing mechanism that leaves billions with unclean drinking water, and billions in poverty is not much of a balancing mechanism, is it?
Amazing, in a situation where Italy and Greece have had their democracies deliberately stripped away to pander to the requirements of global capitalism you still think it amounts to "rule by the people." Truly, some people find it impossible to discard their dogmas.
@mike6459 Yes and lord moncton can solve all our health problems with that machine he has! Its cured heaps of stuff like Graves and AIDS! YouTube "'Lord' Viscount Monckton claims dubious achievements!'
Suggest you spend at least SOME time looking the science YouTube "1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate" And also look at sources that crit your sources "Monckton Bunkum Part 1" THEN you can make statements like this, of course you would not coz you would see that it is false.
total bunk that humans are responsible...first speaker....his artic figures are all wrong...his co2 numbers are wrong...who signs his paycheck? What dribble
That guy is too radical. I remember watching some videos of him talking, and it didn't seem that he wanted what was best for everyone; he wanted societal regression.
But cmon if you look at the politicians lately they are more obsessed with their carriere than to the future of the nation. and to worsen it. DONT GET ME WRONG PEOPLE. but DEMOCRACY kinda messed all things up.
Because with democracy you enable the danger(which has been abused I think) that people which can talk very well, but can't deliver..... only to get their pockets filled and think they are a badass.
@FedayTek It aint democracy. We don't have democracy. Democracy is rule by the people. the problem is we tried to have a republic (people choose rulers) and mixed it with capitalism. Capitalism ruined everything. Everything that helps profit is good or necessary, everything that hurts it is bad or should be avoided.
@FedayTek Those countries are more democratic than here in america, but still I wouldn't call them a democracy. I don't think there are any democracies in the world. All of our countries seem flawed and biased to the more powerful interests in society. Government is a reflection of the power distribution in the economy.
True that, I doubt I could describe western politics better. but tbh (I don't count america int it). In the end it were the people which went to the voting stations and voted for the man which leads than now. this is in the end democracy, but you can't expect the people to make the right choise , because well to convince them. you need a plan that makes them love you, and a good talker which can make them believe that they can accomplish it. I miss the times with dukes and kings
In the Netherlands... but help me recall, I dont remember saying true democracy. What I recall is me saying is that democracy is just a show with alot of actors trying to impress people and the one which gives the biggest hit wins... its a no brainer really.
Well, I was wondering why, then, you discounted American democracy. In what ways are the Netherlands and other European countries more democratic?
But anyone, I think you're wrong to think we should regress to an older form of governance. Sure, what we have isn't that great, but I believe it will improve over time. The best forms governance will appear through a slow evolution.
I beg to differ, When something is broken we cannot let it have time to fix it, we need to do something to fix it.
The problem is mainly is that the people who come in charge after a democratic voting are mostly people purely out of self interest and not of the interest of the people how fine alot of lads might see that they are working for a better nation, but only a handfull is able give you that.
I personally envy the Osmanic goverment style, only it needs some improv
I was not suggesting we wait and do nothing. I think that we should always be making changes to improve our system. All I meant was that, over time, our continuous effort to improve government where need will lead to a system of government better than we have ever seen. I do not know much about the Ottoman, why do you envy their government style?
it hard to explain, but its like this the people in the ottoman goverment have been educated since they were childs, they are in service till they die en while in service they keep improving the nation. this is kinda the summary I can give, because the ottoman goverment style.. you need to read and investigate itself, it ain't something which can be written in a youtube comment section
@owingawat True capitalism is rule by the people. You are imposing your incorrect notions of what people strive for as the goals of capitalism. Capitalism is end goal neutral. It will mirror whatever the actors in the system want.
@MT2R Well, I guess it's an ideology that doesn't work in place like many others. Some actors end up getting more money and they gain more power. Then fewer and fewer actors matter, to the point where it's a 'relative' few corporations that are calling the shots in society, they own the government, media and economy. At the same time de-politicizing the culture transforming the main purpose of the people from citizens to consumers lacking the information to maintain a decent society.
His comment about not saving the world but trying to create a world where a large human population can be sustained I think is absolutely crucial. Great point.
@selvmordspilot do you weight your moral preferences when making decisions in the market? Guess what? Everyone does. Time for you to sit down and actually study what happens with transactions in a true capitalist society. Time to give up dominion over other men and embrace preferences freely interacting.
@MT2R : you so funny. But tell me this. Does a starving person give a fuck if his food is was grown ecologically. Does the market ensure that people without money have their needs satisfied?
@selvmordspilot Maybe you should read some Mises and compare the frameworks. See which one makes more sense. There are unlimited needs and wants. They'll never be satisfied. The question is, how do we best make trade-offs. The market is, by far, the best balancing mechanism there is and will always tinker toward a better future weighing the preferences of all. You want a gun-in-the-room and to violently force your preferences upon others.
@MT2R : sigh... Mises and his austrian homeboys can suck a fat cock for all i care. He's theorizing about a inherently flawed system rather than thinking about how to make something better. So are you, apparently, and I cant be asked to keep listening to that shit.
Sorry about the hostility, but i'm sick of it. Do you acknowledge that billions are poor, billions will be without clean water soon and the market system has no answer, because they have no money?
This would be true assuming that 1) we all have perfect knowledge (we don't), 2) even if (1) was true we are all able to select the best long term strat for survival of the species (most are living hand to mouth and don't have access to choices they would like to make) and could afford it, 3) individuals could (or would) not profit through doing socially unethical behaviour they know is harmful to others or the system as a whole e.g 60's tobacco companies and sub prime mortgages = crash.
@PrometheusFireNZ Not true. I'm making no assumptions of perfect knowledge. Those trying to interfere are actually closer to assuming that among a few actors. I allow for the market, which is constantly tinkering (very underrated by planners) and accepting limits to knowledge while empowering local knowledge. Why should we make the best long term decisions for survival of the species? This is one of the things being balanced by preferences in the market rather than forced upon us by statists.
@MT2R Preferences in the market prefer cheaper methodologies (profit maximization, planned obsolescence). This is almost always bad for planetary health in the form of unsustainable consumption of marine life, or excessive wasted resources due to poorly (cheaply) planned unrecyclable novelty products.
@Youanden Not true. How many RSA videos do we have showing that people are not homoeconomicus? We are not straight profit maximizers or planned obsolescence deciders. And, what is this talk of unsustainable? Has the world not gotten much better over any timeline since the advancement of markets? Yes, there have been hiccups, but the market tinkers and gets by them. You're trying to impose your preferences upon others who happen to enjoy the cheaper and better goods (in terms of hours worked).
@MT2R We are profit maximizers when people aren't educated into the mindset of mechanical automation for basic human needs. The world, sure, but very little of that is thankfully attributed to market economics. The arbiters of what made our lives better than that of kings during feudalism can be counted in the hundreds. Most of those did not contribute out of competition, but out of their own creative interest. Einstein, Tesla, Galileo, Asimov, Turing... continued...
@MT2R 3 Problems: Unpayable debt (principal+interest > principal; principal = total money supply), Environmental Degradation (An arguable majority of factories prefer dumping waste in rivers instead of more expensive cleanup operations), and Technological/Systemic unemployment through outsourcing to cheap sweat-shop labor (think Nike in Indonesia), or the agriculture > manufacturing > service sectors systematically being replaced by more productive robots far outweighing new jobs created.
@MT2R Do you really think that the masses have any idea about these issues when most are robbed of education by those who champion "free markets" & other neo liberal BS coz there is no direct profit in it & it is easier to convince them things that are not in their best interests? There are no free markets, look up "23 things they do not tell you about capitalism" & what happens to points 2&3? As for market tinkering, take a look at biology &short term strats which lead to long term collapse!
Well green industries have greatly influenced political parties for funding/tax breaks/bids. Ever wonder why recycling is promoted more than reusing? The realities green industries are growing rapidly. They are not efficient as they should be, but this is changing with technological advancements. Transnational corps are beginning to change and incorporate green energy. People are becoming less and less dependant on fossil fuels. There are known ways to get green house gases? Trees?
@Alpinex105 Trees don't quite do the trick, but close enough. Hemp would reverse climate change because it soaks up the carbon and spits out oxygen in return, but it can also be used to replace fossil fuels with its biodiesel, hemp cellophane shopping bags instead of paper or natural gas, it can also help us move towards a "chlorine free" world because it isn't needed to treat hemp paper. They say Cannabis is a dangerous plant: dangerous to big oil, pharmaceutical, paper, cotton, plastic etc
@Alpinex105 Corn isn't as good because its part of the human food diet and its also used to feed farm animals. Hemp can be used for food but its not a staple like corn, just 7% of usable farm land would be needed to rid America of its dependence on fossil fuels. Do a search "industrial hemp now" and you'll see why me and many other environmentalists think hemp is a viable option. It did because you suggested planting trees which is inefficient compared to hemp which takes less land.
@Alpinex105 Hemp is better than any of that, because cutting down trees does effect climate change. Plus houses constructed out of hemp are as solid as concrete but insulated better. I'm serious man just do a search "Industrial Hemp Now" and read all the facts. Not saying that we shouldn't re-plant trees from forests that have been cut down but I'm saying we don't need to use paper made from trees because hemp is the better alternative, no need to cut down trees or use chlorine with hemp paper.
@MadXMax187 If you could individually adress each of my points.. it would make t easier for me to respond to your comment because right now I feel I answered many of your concerns.
@MadXMax187 Well in a increasingly paperless world.. would hemp be a viable solution? Well they're all alternatives we have to look into, but to plant hemp over trees? I would strongly disagree with that. Trees wont reduce climate change? Trees don't provide food and habitat for animals? Trees don't serve us with goods and services? I would argue trees are generally easier materials to work with. Homes/guitars/desks ect. Why burn fuel? CO2 is created from the combustion of bioD.
@Alpinex105 I think hemp would be a viable alternative to paper, I'm not saying we shouldn't plant trees and preserve forests, cutting down forests is bad because it destroys animals habitats. Hemp is good for fuel because its not a necessary food like sugar, corn etc. Trees do help reverse climate change also, and using hemp construction materials instead wood would be more efficient because of increased durability. Look into its history, big polluting companies don't want it around 4 a reason.
it's very simple. what is the first argument of this whole debate? Climate is changing or not-changing? obviously no one first stood up and said "Hey, the climate is not changing". and there must some reason the first person shouted "Hey, the climate is changing". Instead of waiting for a mathematical proof that climate change is gonna be disastrous, we should trust our instincts, whatever they say.
swagatata 6 days ago in playlist Science, Technology and the Environment
@dodger, I don't know where you're getting your info from (daily mail or wsj has recent articles that were dishonest and debunked) but the last 10 years have at least 9 of the hottest in 132 yrs according to NASA, IPCC, and the Met Office in the U.K.
phaunger 4 weeks ago
I'm not sure wether global warming is real or not but I do think that the world actually has to warm for the theory to be worth anything at all. 15 years and counting now and no statistically signifigant warming.
Dodger481 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WORLD RECORD: BIGGEST WIND TURBINE
Visit: windturbinecarriedbywheels.weebly.com
ZERO-NOISE from gears and generators since they are sealed underground.
SAVES THE BIRDS AND BATS since slow-moving.
DOES NOT OCCUPY A WIDER LANDSCAPE since the turbine can be very tall.
MAY BE LOWER-COST since it may use timber and other cheaper things.
ELUDES HURRICANE FORCE since the V-type folding blades automatically close.
NO FIRE since well-cooled.
HELPS WIND-ENERGY COMPANIES since it is FREE FOR ALL.
TheServiceWeb 1 month ago
The carbon tax is illegal
JonThm 1 month ago
Plants have metabolised all the carbon dioxide from the air
JonThm 1 month ago
Financial Post, 08/26/11:
“Science is now all-but-settled on glob. warm., convincing new evidence demonstrates, pointing to cosmic rays & the sun - not human activit. - as the dominant controller of climate.
CERN remains too afraid of offending its gov’t masters to admit its success. It decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby & oth. team membs. to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” & to downplay the results.””
Tressco 2 months ago
Photosynthesis limits the global free carbon dioxide in the air
MyJonJonify 2 months ago
Nuclear power thought up global warming after Chernobyl. After the world started cooling in 1998 they changed to climate change. Biologically impossible meaningless fiction
JonThm 2 months ago
Climate change was fiction from nuclear power, after the world started cooling in 1998. Based on a biologically impossible increase of carbon dioxide in the air: plants metabolise carbon dioxide to support life on earth.
JonThm 2 months ago
I recommend for anyone who hasn't heard about it, researching a 'Resource-Based Economy'. There are some interesting ideas there about what a 'green-economy' may look like (:
georgemc25 2 months ago
@scientiaarsvita1 - The average Joe might not be an expert but nothing stops them from finding out more about how things work - you don't need to be a rocket scientist to look things up and learn for yourself how everything fits together. If one person says one thing and another one says something else do your own research to figure out for yourself which is right.
@PwNa93 - Seems similar ... the ideas on both sides ultimately lead to a very similar outcome. Same thing different packaging.
gseletko 3 months ago
@gseletko
No, you don't need to be a rocket scientist, but it probably help if you were a scientist in a relevant field. I don't know why I would be better at understanding this then people who study this type of thing. They may be wrong, but their case is likely going to be better than ours.
mellamosean 3 months ago
@mellamosean I didn't say the scientists are wrong, nor that their case isn't good - I'm just saying that the average Joe should start applying themselves to learn more about a subject if they're confused about which side is right. People who are willing to swallow whatever others tell them based only on what they hear have only themselves to blame for any incorrect understandings they might have. I'm just advocating a little bit of critical thinking and self education. Like u say - Google it.
gseletko 3 months ago
@AnnoyedDragon - the only annoying thing is when people think they are caught between two equally feasible options when in fact they simply have to make a choice between reason and wisdom of science and foolishness and ignorance of superstition of the general public and politicians :(
grzymol 3 months ago
@grzymol Again, both sides say there is a consensus and the other side is spreading propaganda. All you are basically doing is continuing that.
Both groups insist that the science is on their side.
AnnoyedDragon 3 months ago
@AnnoyedDragon
A few simple google searches an you will find the scientists largely accept it. I'm yet to come across anything suggesting otherwise, so where are you hearing or seeing this?
mellamosean 3 months ago
He's talking about The Venus Project - a global paradigm shift in how we think about everyday life
gseletko 3 months ago
@gseletko no way, the venus project is totally different
PwNa93 3 months ago
There are only two groups when it comes to global warming, those who believe and those who don't, and they both think you're an idiot for not believing exactly like them.
This video included.
And then we, the general none scientific population, are put in the middle and pulled between these two extremes.
No one knows who to believe, because both sides are producing conflicting information and accusing the other side of spreading propaganda. It is very annoying.
AnnoyedDragon 3 months ago 7
@AnnoyedDragon - Your annoyance is shared by many people. Here are things to consider: Scientists are generally not motivated by money. If they were, they would be in business! They are too irascible to conspire. They would love to make their name by overturning a commonly held misconception if they had the evidence for it. So, anyone who says that scientists are conspiring is not credible.
I recommend youtube climate videos by greenman3610. He's entertaining, concise, and accurate.
scientiaarsvita1 3 months ago
@scientiaarsvita1 Again.
watch?v=jgyysdc7DQM
There are scientists saying there is climate change and there are scientists saying there isn't. With both sides saying the other is spreading propaganda.
As a average Joe who isn't an expert, you don't know who to trust. Because both sides can present scientific information they argue unquestionable supports their side of the argument.
AnnoyedDragon 3 months ago
@scientiaarsvita1 Read "The Father of Spin" if you want historical proof that scientists can be used to form a "scientific consensus" for almost any belief.
lorax2013 3 months ago
@AnnoyedDragon I completely agree.
AngryRantingNerd 3 months ago
@AnnoyedDragon
it seems the scientific community is more on one side than the other, does it not? what other authority figures would you look to?
mellamosean 3 months ago
@mellamosean The problem is I see interests on both sides. There isn't some selfless group that is just looking at what the data says, both sides have an agenda.
The anti GW corporate interests are obvious. But most people don't recognise that politicians love global warming. All the sudden there is this demand for economic and social change. An excuse to create new markets, new taxes, something to outdo the opposition in.
These green taxes and investments give politics a reason to push it.
AnnoyedDragon 3 months ago
@AnnoyedDragon
I'm sorry, but even if is some agenda on the side accepting GW, I don't think it would be as universal as the support for the theory. Look what wikipedia says about scientific opinion on GW.
mellamosean 3 months ago
@mellamosean Again, both sides claim the evidence is in their favour; and it is the other side spreading propaganda. The political power pushing for climate change being real, could simply be doing so for the creation of a green tech bubble.
In the same way that some corporations are against GW because it would hurt their profits, government would benefit greatly from global warming being real. So they're expected to push it.
Money and politics need to get out of climate science.
AnnoyedDragon 3 months ago
@AnnoyedDragon
"No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions." wiki
mellamosean 3 months ago
@mellamosean Wiki isn't exactly a reliable source.
That said, even if you used some official and trustworthy source, there is far too much money and interests involved to trust anyone.
It doesn't help that they stated that questioning GW is a good way to end your scientific career, which is hardly ideal when you are looking for transparency.
We have money grubbing corps on one side and manipulative power hungry politicians on the other. I don't know who to trust, so I say bugger them both.
AnnoyedDragon 3 months ago
@AnnoyedDragon
well republicans largely deny global warming, so only half (give or take) of the politicians accept it, yet the scientific community is much more united; if you think politicians are influencing scientists around the world, why is it that republicans and other deniers seem to have no little or no influence on scientists? If you don't accept that the scientific community is in agreement, we can start looking at the numbers reflected by surveys.
mellamosean 3 months ago
@AnnoyedDragon
I see the scientific community as the only authority, and they seem to be largely on the same side, according to this info.
mellamosean 3 months ago
@AnnoyedDragon
I'd say the rational thing to do in a case like this is to accept the consensus of the experts. In this case, that would mean anyone who actually IS a climatologist or a scientist in a related field. Among this group the consensus is pretty clear.
This isn't a guarantee the consensus couldn't be wrong, but science and the scientific establishment has a pretty good record.
Would you accept the opinion of the dissenting 3% if it was something like surgery?
iAmEhead 1 month ago
@AnnoyedDragon You must be joking, do you really see a conflict between what some politicians and public laymen (on this subject) say and what 99% of the scientific community say? If so, do you have a problem deciding on evolution also? A changing environment is a fact, supported by massive data from dossen of different fields, it might not be caused by humans, but that would not change the problem at hand, and the actions we need to engage ourself in.
Alabasterocean 1 month ago
@Alabasterocean I don't appreciate the suggestion that just because I notice that green tech is the biggest economic bubble politicians could possibility hope for, that I'm some sort of anti scientist reject.
I thoroughly recognise climate change, which is a redundant statement; because the climate is always changing. It suggests it was at some equilibrium that was broken at some point, which is nonsense. Ice core samples show heating and cooling periods in Earth's history.
AnnoyedDragon 1 month ago
My problem is there are interests in pushing climate change as being solely the cause of humans, and all we need to do to fix it is to hike taxes and consume/construct vast amounts of ineffective and expensive green technology.
One volcano erruption releases more carbon than humans ever could. Yet some rich idiot is going fly around the world to guilt trip poor people into taking less baths, while his heated swimming pool is waiting for him back home.
AnnoyedDragon 1 month ago
is there a place where I could find full video version of this speech ?
Jacek30PL 3 months ago
if we want a green economy, it needs to be global, or it wont change a thing in the long run.
Discussing the implementation of a global resource based economy is the only seriously starting point for any debate addressing climate change (as well as a long series of other issues).
So why doesn't any RSA videos debate this?
selvmordspilot 3 months ago 2
In he past humans "managed" climate change (global cooling) by migration but the world now is too densely populated for such strategy. Here in canada we encourage immigration from low energy intensive areas thus accelerating energy/entropy "development".
The real breakthrough will be human pop crash.
Humans cannot create or use tools (especially language) except to irrevocably destroy nature.
malexandrec 3 months ago
Climate change has downgraded INTO Politics, that's the damn problem. It paralyzes them.
Mueiwark 3 months ago
The market system that has led and continues to lead to the greatest improvements in the history of mankind. Is it perfect? No. But, there isn't a better system. Look at the millions and millions whose lives have improved the last few decades. It wasn't from top-down interventions. It was from embracing free markets with spontaneous order. I'm sick of the guys that boo boo the world and don't understand the things that make it better, but think they can direct things as a benevolent autocrat.
MT2R 3 months ago
@MT2R well said
2plus2make4 3 months ago
"The market is, by far, the best balancing mechanism there is"
You mean the mechanism which has led to the greatest levels of inequality the world has ever seen, destroyed social mobility and which regularly crashes and breaks down causing untold misery to millions? Jesus dream big why don't you...
RobRay81 3 months ago
@RobRay81 : indeed!! a balancing mechanism that leaves billions with unclean drinking water, and billions in poverty is not much of a balancing mechanism, is it?
selvmordspilot 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"True capitalism is rule by the people"
Amazing, in a situation where Italy and Greece have had their democracies deliberately stripped away to pander to the requirements of global capitalism you still think it amounts to "rule by the people." Truly, some people find it impossible to discard their dogmas.
RobRay81 3 months ago
Lord Moncton would make this guy trip over his lies
mike6459 3 months ago
@mike6459 Lord Moncton is a proven liar. You can find plenty of videos and articles debunking his terrible arguments.
Otokogoroshi 3 months ago
@mike6459 Yes and lord moncton can solve all our health problems with that machine he has! Its cured heaps of stuff like Graves and AIDS! YouTube "'Lord' Viscount Monckton claims dubious achievements!'
Suggest you spend at least SOME time looking the science YouTube "1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate" And also look at sources that crit your sources "Monckton Bunkum Part 1" THEN you can make statements like this, of course you would not coz you would see that it is false.
PrometheusFireNZ 3 months ago
total bunk that humans are responsible...first speaker....his artic figures are all wrong...his co2 numbers are wrong...who signs his paycheck? What dribble
mike6459 3 months ago
hemp or bust
mike6459 3 months ago
An intrinsically dull individual
niriop 3 months ago
Check on - Derrick Jensen
TheBoomshaker 3 months ago
@TheBoomshaker
That guy is too radical. I remember watching some videos of him talking, and it didn't seem that he wanted what was best for everyone; he wanted societal regression.
mellamosean 3 months ago
But cmon if you look at the politicians lately they are more obsessed with their carriere than to the future of the nation. and to worsen it. DONT GET ME WRONG PEOPLE. but DEMOCRACY kinda messed all things up.
Because with democracy you enable the danger(which has been abused I think) that people which can talk very well, but can't deliver..... only to get their pockets filled and think they are a badass.
There have to come a more responsible system.
Ottoman system worked quite well
FedayTek 3 months ago
@FedayTek It aint democracy. We don't have democracy. Democracy is rule by the people. the problem is we tried to have a republic (people choose rulers) and mixed it with capitalism. Capitalism ruined everything. Everything that helps profit is good or necessary, everything that hurts it is bad or should be avoided.
owingawat 3 months ago
@owingawat
I live in europa. In a "democratic system" descriped in my prev post
FedayTek 3 months ago
@FedayTek Those countries are more democratic than here in america, but still I wouldn't call them a democracy. I don't think there are any democracies in the world. All of our countries seem flawed and biased to the more powerful interests in society. Government is a reflection of the power distribution in the economy.
owingawat 3 months ago
@owingawat
True that, I doubt I could describe western politics better. but tbh (I don't count america int it). In the end it were the people which went to the voting stations and voted for the man which leads than now. this is in the end democracy, but you can't expect the people to make the right choise , because well to convince them. you need a plan that makes them love you, and a good talker which can make them believe that they can accomplish it. I miss the times with dukes and kings
FedayTek 3 months ago
@FedayTek
And where do you live exactly? I don't know of any true democracies.
mellamosean 3 months ago
@mellamosean
In the Netherlands... but help me recall, I dont remember saying true democracy. What I recall is me saying is that democracy is just a show with alot of actors trying to impress people and the one which gives the biggest hit wins... its a no brainer really.
FedayTek 3 months ago
@FedayTek
Well, I was wondering why, then, you discounted American democracy. In what ways are the Netherlands and other European countries more democratic?
But anyone, I think you're wrong to think we should regress to an older form of governance. Sure, what we have isn't that great, but I believe it will improve over time. The best forms governance will appear through a slow evolution.
mellamosean 3 months ago
@mellamosean
I beg to differ, When something is broken we cannot let it have time to fix it, we need to do something to fix it.
The problem is mainly is that the people who come in charge after a democratic voting are mostly people purely out of self interest and not of the interest of the people how fine alot of lads might see that they are working for a better nation, but only a handfull is able give you that.
I personally envy the Osmanic goverment style, only it needs some improv
FedayTek 3 months ago
@FedayTek
I was not suggesting we wait and do nothing. I think that we should always be making changes to improve our system. All I meant was that, over time, our continuous effort to improve government where need will lead to a system of government better than we have ever seen. I do not know much about the Ottoman, why do you envy their government style?
mellamosean 3 months ago
@mellamosean
it hard to explain, but its like this the people in the ottoman goverment have been educated since they were childs, they are in service till they die en while in service they keep improving the nation. this is kinda the summary I can give, because the ottoman goverment style.. you need to read and investigate itself, it ain't something which can be written in a youtube comment section
FedayTek 3 months ago
@owingawat True capitalism is rule by the people. You are imposing your incorrect notions of what people strive for as the goals of capitalism. Capitalism is end goal neutral. It will mirror whatever the actors in the system want.
MT2R 3 months ago
@MT2R Well, I guess it's an ideology that doesn't work in place like many others. Some actors end up getting more money and they gain more power. Then fewer and fewer actors matter, to the point where it's a 'relative' few corporations that are calling the shots in society, they own the government, media and economy. At the same time de-politicizing the culture transforming the main purpose of the people from citizens to consumers lacking the information to maintain a decent society.
owingawat 3 months ago
His comment about not saving the world but trying to create a world where a large human population can be sustained I think is absolutely crucial. Great point.
grungerman 3 months ago
We are the market. It expresses the group's preferences in a way far better than whatever silly ideas you are putting forward to force upon others.
MT2R 3 months ago
@MT2R : lol. that's the dumbest thing i've seen on the internet this year. Thank you for reminding me why america is circling the drain.
selvmordspilot 3 months ago
@selvmordspilot do you weight your moral preferences when making decisions in the market? Guess what? Everyone does. Time for you to sit down and actually study what happens with transactions in a true capitalist society. Time to give up dominion over other men and embrace preferences freely interacting.
MT2R 3 months ago
@MT2R : you so funny. But tell me this. Does a starving person give a fuck if his food is was grown ecologically. Does the market ensure that people without money have their needs satisfied?
Time for you to read some f*cking Marx.
selvmordspilot 3 months ago 6
@selvmordspilot Maybe you should read some Mises and compare the frameworks. See which one makes more sense. There are unlimited needs and wants. They'll never be satisfied. The question is, how do we best make trade-offs. The market is, by far, the best balancing mechanism there is and will always tinker toward a better future weighing the preferences of all. You want a gun-in-the-room and to violently force your preferences upon others.
MT2R 3 months ago
@MT2R : sigh... Mises and his austrian homeboys can suck a fat cock for all i care. He's theorizing about a inherently flawed system rather than thinking about how to make something better. So are you, apparently, and I cant be asked to keep listening to that shit.
Sorry about the hostility, but i'm sick of it. Do you acknowledge that billions are poor, billions will be without clean water soon and the market system has no answer, because they have no money?
selvmordspilot 3 months ago
@selvmordspilot
M A R X.
FUCK YEA! :D
shurednichso 3 months ago
@MT2R
This would be true assuming that 1) we all have perfect knowledge (we don't), 2) even if (1) was true we are all able to select the best long term strat for survival of the species (most are living hand to mouth and don't have access to choices they would like to make) and could afford it, 3) individuals could (or would) not profit through doing socially unethical behaviour they know is harmful to others or the system as a whole e.g 60's tobacco companies and sub prime mortgages = crash.
PrometheusFireNZ 3 months ago
@PrometheusFireNZ Not true. I'm making no assumptions of perfect knowledge. Those trying to interfere are actually closer to assuming that among a few actors. I allow for the market, which is constantly tinkering (very underrated by planners) and accepting limits to knowledge while empowering local knowledge. Why should we make the best long term decisions for survival of the species? This is one of the things being balanced by preferences in the market rather than forced upon us by statists.
MT2R 3 months ago
@MT2R Preferences in the market prefer cheaper methodologies (profit maximization, planned obsolescence). This is almost always bad for planetary health in the form of unsustainable consumption of marine life, or excessive wasted resources due to poorly (cheaply) planned unrecyclable novelty products.
Youanden 3 months ago
@Youanden Not true. How many RSA videos do we have showing that people are not homoeconomicus? We are not straight profit maximizers or planned obsolescence deciders. And, what is this talk of unsustainable? Has the world not gotten much better over any timeline since the advancement of markets? Yes, there have been hiccups, but the market tinkers and gets by them. You're trying to impose your preferences upon others who happen to enjoy the cheaper and better goods (in terms of hours worked).
MT2R 3 months ago
@MT2R We are profit maximizers when people aren't educated into the mindset of mechanical automation for basic human needs. The world, sure, but very little of that is thankfully attributed to market economics. The arbiters of what made our lives better than that of kings during feudalism can be counted in the hundreds. Most of those did not contribute out of competition, but out of their own creative interest. Einstein, Tesla, Galileo, Asimov, Turing... continued...
Youanden 3 months ago
@MT2R 3 Problems: Unpayable debt (principal+interest > principal; principal = total money supply), Environmental Degradation (An arguable majority of factories prefer dumping waste in rivers instead of more expensive cleanup operations), and Technological/Systemic unemployment through outsourcing to cheap sweat-shop labor (think Nike in Indonesia), or the agriculture > manufacturing > service sectors systematically being replaced by more productive robots far outweighing new jobs created.
Youanden 3 months ago
@MT2R Do you really think that the masses have any idea about these issues when most are robbed of education by those who champion "free markets" & other neo liberal BS coz there is no direct profit in it & it is easier to convince them things that are not in their best interests? There are no free markets, look up "23 things they do not tell you about capitalism" & what happens to points 2&3? As for market tinkering, take a look at biology &short term strats which lead to long term collapse!
PrometheusFireNZ 3 months ago
Well green industries have greatly influenced political parties for funding/tax breaks/bids. Ever wonder why recycling is promoted more than reusing? The realities green industries are growing rapidly. They are not efficient as they should be, but this is changing with technological advancements. Transnational corps are beginning to change and incorporate green energy. People are becoming less and less dependant on fossil fuels. There are known ways to get green house gases? Trees?
Alpinex105 3 months ago
@Alpinex105 Trees don't quite do the trick, but close enough. Hemp would reverse climate change because it soaks up the carbon and spits out oxygen in return, but it can also be used to replace fossil fuels with its biodiesel, hemp cellophane shopping bags instead of paper or natural gas, it can also help us move towards a "chlorine free" world because it isn't needed to treat hemp paper. They say Cannabis is a dangerous plant: dangerous to big oil, pharmaceutical, paper, cotton, plastic etc
MadXMax187 3 months ago
@MadXMax187 Trees don't do that? I was talking about co2 gasses.. why hemp? corn fuel?
Alpinex105 3 months ago
@MadXMax187 hemp one of the many... your comment didn't really have anything to do with my comment.
Alpinex105 3 months ago
@Alpinex105 Corn isn't as good because its part of the human food diet and its also used to feed farm animals. Hemp can be used for food but its not a staple like corn, just 7% of usable farm land would be needed to rid America of its dependence on fossil fuels. Do a search "industrial hemp now" and you'll see why me and many other environmentalists think hemp is a viable option. It did because you suggested planting trees which is inefficient compared to hemp which takes less land.
MadXMax187 3 months ago
Comment removed
Alpinex105 3 months ago
@Alpinex105 Hemp is better than any of that, because cutting down trees does effect climate change. Plus houses constructed out of hemp are as solid as concrete but insulated better. I'm serious man just do a search "Industrial Hemp Now" and read all the facts. Not saying that we shouldn't re-plant trees from forests that have been cut down but I'm saying we don't need to use paper made from trees because hemp is the better alternative, no need to cut down trees or use chlorine with hemp paper.
MadXMax187 3 months ago
@MadXMax187 If you could individually adress each of my points.. it would make t easier for me to respond to your comment because right now I feel I answered many of your concerns.
Alpinex105 3 months ago
@MadXMax187 Well in a increasingly paperless world.. would hemp be a viable solution? Well they're all alternatives we have to look into, but to plant hemp over trees? I would strongly disagree with that. Trees wont reduce climate change? Trees don't provide food and habitat for animals? Trees don't serve us with goods and services? I would argue trees are generally easier materials to work with. Homes/guitars/desks ect. Why burn fuel? CO2 is created from the combustion of bioD.
Alpinex105 3 months ago
@Alpinex105 I think hemp would be a viable alternative to paper, I'm not saying we shouldn't plant trees and preserve forests, cutting down forests is bad because it destroys animals habitats. Hemp is good for fuel because its not a necessary food like sugar, corn etc. Trees do help reverse climate change also, and using hemp construction materials instead wood would be more efficient because of increased durability. Look into its history, big polluting companies don't want it around 4 a reason.
MadXMax187 3 months ago
@MadXMax187 Big oil companies are transitioning to cleaner energies. What about sugar canes?
Alpinex105 3 months ago
first
thetango288 3 months ago