There is no doubt that some climate change is occurring, and also no doubt that we are partially responsible, but the fact is that our influence is greatly exaggerated, and also the negative effects that the small amount of change will have are also greatly exaggerated. And anything we do to try and stop it will have such a small effect that it will be completely pointless.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on by Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. WE NEED IT NOW. The source is deuterium from the World’s Oceans – virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce."..could cost as little as 0.9c per kilowatt" See blog "the Big Picture by Andrew Horvath" July 01 post.
website “Star Scientific Limited”
Youtube video – “In the Footsteps of Fusion” + youtube channel
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
Globel warming has been a Myth for years and still call real. There is 3,000 PHD's that tell you is is just a Myth and 120 PHDs will tell you it is real. the 120 PHD'S work off research grants that pay their pay checks every week !
the warming we have now is a natural thing that happens every 200 yrs.
If California would just fall into the ocean, like has been promised for Generations, The worlds Green House Gas Problem would be solved. Those holier than though pontificators want to control everyone else's life. They are truly polluting the atmosphere with their emissions of co2 into the environment every time they open their mouths.
DONT READ THIS CAUSE IT REALLY WORKS.YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF UR LIFE.TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE.HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS OR YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS.NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY.SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS.THIS IS SO SCARY BUT REALLY WORKS
He gave no proof or evidence. Just insulted the scientists who disagree with him. At least they give evidence and proof for their theories. The more and more I look into this it does seem the sun theory is correct.
@Finn001abd Alright, here's "proof or evidence" (although science doesn't deal with proof, but whatever). According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. And even before satellites were available, there has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century. According to the Max Planck Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.
@ConscientiousMind At the moment the sun spot count is going down so that should suggest a decline in heat coming from the sun, but I'll look more into your point. Thank you for sharing. :)
@MirageScience allright buddy, at first I suppose you take a look at the latest sun activity charts and the global warming charts an overlay them, so that the timeperiods matches. then you see that it is correct that there are some corelations. but for the last 20 years there aren't... ergo the sun is not the answer.
if you want evidence take a look at the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) or the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). especcialy the Charney Report.
to get further... the theory of climate change isn't that new at all. around the beginning of the 20th century the first theories emerged. later in the thirties the theories where rechecked. then in the fifties the scientiest said... yep climate change is happening and we are the ones doing it.
this controversy was just started maybee 15 oder 20 years ago, 40 years after the scientiests conclusively said, we are the bad boys
@MirageScience That's a valid question, it's nice that at least some climate skeptics are asking instead of flatly denying. :) If you're genuinely interested in the truth, then hopefully this will convince you at least a little bit. Check this link out, it covers most arguments and objections against climate science including the role of the Sun.
grist (dot) org (slash) article (slash) series (slash) skeptics
@MirageScience "WHEN IS SOMONE GONNA GIVE ME EVIDENCE ITS NOT THE SUN
THATS ALL I WANT TO SEE, WILL NO ONE DO IT? WHERE ARE THE VIDEOS?"
No need to yell. The video you're looking for is right here on youtube; search for "Crock of the Week - Solar Schmolar" and happy viewing. But videos are not evidence, you probably realize that.
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
The new knowledge is that AGW is happening, but at an almost immeasurable rate, our current warming is a natural trend that has happened for billions of years. Watch Henrick Svensmark for the truth. 5 part series, very important to watch it.
@circusboy90210 its fritrating hearing statements like this. Its such simple science it astounds me someone can deny it. We burn fossil fuels. The reaction is fossil fuel + o2 = co2 + H20 (similar to how living things burn fuel, except our hydrocarbons are carbohydrates, but the principals are the same)
This releases co2 into the atmosphere. the co2 molecue holds heat well. Therefore the more heat shined on the co2, means the warmer the surrounding air.
@markgg1 Also i understand how FRITRATING it is arguing with brainless people that follow the scam like sheep. Please wake up to the fact that its a natural warming trend that is occurring at the same rate as the last two. For which we could have had no CO2 foot print. If you think there is a consensus, tell that to the 30,000 scientists on the petition against the alarmism. Against the energy tax that will skyrocket energy prices, and kill billions.
@TheKickerboy99 Ive looked at the evidence carefully as a science student who always is sceptical of claims. Even without any data at all you could make a good prediction about humans raising the temperature just based on the knowledge that we burn 100+ tonnes of co2 per day, and understanding the thermal physics of the molecule. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and heats up matter when radiation hits it. It also works for other planets in the solar system.
@markgg1 Look at Henrick Svensmarks 5 part series on here if you want the truth. If you want to support Al's tax program based on computer models then carry on, just don't try and convince anyone without the facts. The current warming trend is happening at exactly the same rate as the last two, for which we could not have had any effect.
@markgg1 if only it were so simple . complex machines like our planet do not work so simply. our planet is so complex even the most sophisticated computers cannot even begin to model completely or more than 5 day's in advanced.
@circusboy90210 Again, its sch simple science I cant see how you miss it.
volcanoes pump less than 1% of the CO2 into the atmosphere, 99+% comes from human involvement,
even if it were all lies, using fossil fuels is a dirty polluting 19th century solution to a 21st century solution. All we need to build is the right infrastructre and we would have free energy as the sun constantly provides it via solar energy, tidal forces, and win.
Burning million year old dead animals is a poor solution
@markgg1 evedently you have not read the lead report on co2 @ mankinds input humans produce less than 5% of all ghg's.
fossil fuels are made mainly from microbes not dead animals. it has athe most amount of energy per unit & is virtually unlimited compared to our use. do some math before you parrot from brainwashing & ignorance.
@circusboy90210 Ok lets for one second postulate that humans are not causing global warming.
Fossil fuels are still bad news for simple reasons. They require a expensive infrastructure system to bring them to people, as well as release pollutants. There is a risk of oil spills into the oceans, and also the ecological damage from mining, and drilling.
The suns energy through wind, solar power, tide forces is an UNLIMITED supply It only requires we buld the infrastructure than sit back and relax
@markgg1 what are you worried about expense?? that money employs millions of people. it's only money. nat resources are here for us to use not to lie unused. there is risk in everything you do in life.
if your so worried about expense wind, solar etc require even more expense & are not reliable. crude oil has more energy pre unit thatn any other form of energy & it's here for us to use. most of the exhaust is h20 anyhow. just need bigger penalty's for spillers.
@circusboy90210 no.... green energy is cheaper because it is infinite. No business in the world is interested in green tech cause little money will be made from it, hence why it is generally only public owned organisations that have any interest i.e. government. Yes some of the exhaust is h2o, but also co2 plus pollutants.
You still haven't answered the fundamental question as to what benefit does using fossil fuels give over green alternatives?
@markgg1 what benefit?? it's easy to obtain. even if we have to dig 20 miles or more to get it the bore holes will give us access to more thermal energy for the planets core. its a nat resource that was placed here for us to use not to waste by letting it sit by idly.
most of the exhuast 98% is h20 from almost any combustion process. co2 is not a pollutant plants & algae need it to live. no2 is not a pollutant. mankind contibution to the atmosphere is very miniman.
the chemical reaction for burning a C5 hydrocarbon is C5H12 + O2 -> 5CO2 + 6H20 (or there about). It is completely wrong to say 98% if the exhaust is water.
Noone suggested CO2 is a pollutant, but it is a global warming gas due to its ability to hold heat from thermal radiation. Its all very basic chemistry and it cannot be argued with.,
@circusboy90210 its basic atomic theory. matter cannot be created or destroyed therefore when you burn carbon based matter, it will release a carbon based gas. The carbon cant just disappear
@markgg1 the carbon transforms into something else. 98% of crude oil combustion is h20 not carbon. mankind only creates 5% of ghg's. this is according to the ipcc report. in a chemical equation you can "lose" carbon. you need some basic chemistry lessons .
@circusboy90210 I keep starting to write a response to your claim that the carbon is 'lost' in the reaction, but frankly I don't know how to respond to this and keep deleting my post.
A fossil fuel is a chain of carbon bonds with hydrogens attached. When this bond is broken (with the help of oxygen) energy is released (it combusts)
The waste from this reaction must contain all the atoms that were put in, so carbon joins to the oxygen (carbon dioxide) and the hydrogens also bind to oxygen (H2O or water)
every reaction in nature must equal out. Same number of atoms going in, must come out. Its physically impossible to 'lose' atoms.
@circusboy90210 so try to imagine the tonnes and tonnes of oil, and coal etc we burn in our planes, cars, factories, power stations. every carbon atom in these chains is converted to one molecule of CO2 which is pumped into the atmosphere.
This is scientific fact. Just like the sky is blue, light is a wave, and the earth is a sphere. This is NOT up for a debate. If you don't understand this, read a basic chemistry text book.
gosh, no wander you don't think humans are contributing to warming.
@circusboy90210 the next part of the storey is that the carbon dioxide accumulates. It has the ability to hold thermal energy (again a fact) and so the more of it in the air, the more thermal energy from the sun is absorbed. The more trees failed means less CO2 absorbed (as trees convert co2 to carbohydrates which we use for our energy, in the same way a car does) exacerbating the problem.
There is a clear trend between more co2 in the atmosphere, and raised temperature. The link is too strong.
@markgg1 explain our so called accumulation . trees are a minor player in scrubbing co2 algae actually does the majority of the work.
your link has very little probability. even if it could be proven 1 degree over 100 years is nothing to worry about. this is not a reason to over regulate peoples lifestyles.
@circusboy90210 Im not wathcing any u tube vids making its bold claims. Established science, is established simply because the evidence supports it.
Therefore by default one must agree with it.
An analogy for me is alternative medicen. All the alternative medicines that were proven to work, were simply called medicine.
You are in the same box as the UFO people, creationists, elvis believers, and nazis. all of these ideas are always based on paranoid delusions without any actual hard evidence.
@markgg1 actually the real truth is the science behind global warming is based on bad numbers so there is no science , I don't have to agree with what is not true.
also according to your precious ipcc(who has no scientific legs to stand on) mankind only pproduces 5% of ghg's , right there alone tells you anthro cc is not possible.
@markgg1 believe what you need to believe, funding controls the outcome. it's the temperature measuring stations that went off line , the subsea ocean buoy's that read erroneous sub sea temps. instead of air temps( sub sea temps are vastly higher) there are so many things wrong with this temp data it's impossible to make any valid statements based on this much less scientific theory.
@circusboy90210 what about ice core samples, and the simple chemistry of the CO2 molecule, as well as the fact of deforestation? This along with the shringking of the ice on the poles, and the directly obervable rising temparatures?
@markgg1 science has proven heat leads co2. deforestation?? that has nothing to do with this subject if anything increased co2 makes for more forest. the north pole is shrinking while the south is growing. remember the earth is not a sphere it's like a pear and the north pole is more likely to absorb more solar heat.
scientist also have to come up with the results wanted or they loose their funding.
@circusboy90210 how exactly does the shape of the earth affect absorption of solar heat at poles? deforestation means less trees to absorb the co2 just to clarify. CO2 absorbs heat, this is simply a fact of chemistry, hence why other planets are so hot.
What evidence do you have to say the scientists are lying to get funded?
@markgg1 we have more and more forest's every day thanks to the commodization of lumber it's more valuable to keep trees growing than to just strip farm them as we used to. However trees ability to absorb co2 is highly overrated, most of the co2 is absorbed by plankton & other diatoms. the shape of the earth?? well being pear shaped means the north pole is more perependicular to the suns incoming ray's causing it to absorb more energy than a round one. other planets have no atmosphere stillwarm
@circusboy90210 It is a well known fact the forests are being hacked down to make space for farming hence why many green groups are concerned. look it up. also trees absorb CO2 to turn into sugar that we use as fuel via photosynthesis. I can assure you trees absorb a lot of CO2 (I dont know specifics).
There are over a trillion trillion planets, I can assure you many of them have atmospheres. Mars has an atmosphere of mainly Co2 and is very hot because of it. Again look it up
@circusboy90210 on the pole thing... the ICe has been there for tens of thousands of years, and since industrialization has there been a record decline. Again, these are all FACTS ewhich cannot be argued with.
yes, the planet changes temperature occasionally, but this happens very slowly over thousands of years. the temperature of earth has risen faster than any point in our history and has a direct correlation with the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. We burn hydrocarbons which creates the Co2
@circusboy90210 even if using fossil fuel wasnt heating the planet (which it is) it is a finite resource, and is a pollutant.
It is unsustaineable and we need to use the suns energy via tides and wind eventually... why not just do it now.
All one needs to do is build the infrastructre, such as wind farms and the energy is FREE forever as wind never stops obviously. No drilling needed, no oil spills, no rising oil prices, no wars for oil, no pollution from burning them.
@circusboy90210 IM not even a tree hugging lefty... im seeing this from a sensible economic long term perspective. we waste our money on oil, coal and gas when we can get energy for free. we waste resources and our wealth on supplying the resources to us.
It is a silly, expensive, polluting situation as well as the untold damage done to the planet. I hate to sound like a tree hugger here, but us humans have one small planet to look after and if we mess it up now our future is over.
@markgg1 finite yes as there is so much room in the planet. but for practical thinking there is no shortage of any fossil fuels when you combine coal, nat gas,crude oil, & tar sands we have more than a few thousand years worth of energy. tree hugging is awesome just need to base it on sound science. we spend less than 20% of our gdp on energy so this is not wastefull. besides that's what money is for. to spend on things you like.
@circusboy90210 but di you want to still tear up the ground, pollute the air, take the risk of warming the planet, and oil spills, and basically the foul smell and problem of asthma in the city simply because you refuse to use common sense and see we can get energy for free after we simply build some infrastructre.
we need jobs to be created at the mo.. what better way is a huge green infrastructure project in the rich countries? that would cure unemployment, and cure the energy crises.
@circusboy90210 That kind of thinking is wrong! Earth has limited resources. You also made wrong assumptions in your calculations, some experts calculated that fossil fuels will run out in 2043. Also you have not considered that we are increasing in number exponentially, so our needs rise exponentially as well. This is also true to space, water, food, etc.
If we think and assume things like you did, we would always crave more and more and one day reality struck and there would be no more left.
@mapflu no that kind of thinking is completely correct. the earth is limited by politics & greed not by what it can actually produce to keep people alive & thriving. the gulf oil drilling site would have boosted production by almost 305. there is no shortage of anything our population is not eponential.
@circusboy90210 Limited by politics? Earth is a finite amount. Approximating it by assuming it's infinite is foolish. We all already about to deplete it.
And greed? Its greed that is causing all this depletion right now.
Where did u get the no.?
Population might not be exactly exponential but it is increasing fast, and it seems you does not include increase of pop. in your calculations. Its almost increasing by 1 trillion per 10 years.
@mapflu there is no lack of any natural resourcees. the planet is way bigger than you can fathom . we occupy less than 4% of the airable land mass. the crust of the planet is about 20 miles thick and full of very usable nat resources to think that we have the capability to drain all of that is not mathematically possible.
the only reason people starve is governments that horde the food so the people starve not lack of it.
@circusboy90210 We occupy little but how much do we really need? Say we live in cities, but is oxygen made in cities? Does lumber come from cities? maybe fishes come from cites. The answer is no! They came from places we have not occupied. So where do they came and how large are this places be to support us? If you include that, your numbers would explode.
It might be 20 mile thick, but most of it is rock. Oil occurs only in small pockets (and are hard to find). Again you overestimate.
@circusboy90210 fossil fuels are finite. the suns energy will be burning for the next 4 billion years. The moon will pull the tides around for a very long time also.
I just dont see the positive argument for still using fossil fuels. They are a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem.
What possible advantage over wind, solar, tidal power does fossil fuels have?
Infact, building a huge infrastructure project would create millions of jobs, and is precisely what the west needs at the mo
@markgg1 our planet has enough nat gas in one location to provide our needs for a couple of thousand years & in that time even more will be produced. it's a sort of solar power diatoms absorb energy die then convert to methane.
time knows no bounds so your 21 cent arguement is a fallacy .
@circusboy90210 yes all energy on earth comes ultimately from the sun. Most of us know this already.
But using fossil fuels is so inefficient. It takes millions of years to produce, and is converting energy into reduced carbons, and than oxidising them, releasing tonnes of co2.
2000 years or 2 years its irrelevant. Fossil fuels are finite, inefficient, and polluting the environment with toxins. Its so obvious I don't even know why you can defend it.
@markgg1 finite yes but on the scale we are dealing with virtually infinite. the planet is huge compared to us we are mere microbes to the planet. abiotic theory tells us that oil does not take millions of years. oil can be made withing day's using diatoms.
@circusboy90210 Oh please be serious. This theory is extremely controversial,, it is not even properly tested and all the evidence goes against it. Its a mere hypothesis and not accepted by the vast majority of scientists.
@circusboy90210 LOL! heat leads CO2! LOL! CO2 is a product of combustion (burning) not merely heat. More CO2 -> more forest is false. God! There is little forest left already! Why can't you see that. Also deforestation releases a lot of CO2 because it usually means that the forest are burned or cut with fuel burning machineries (wonder how could you could deforest with a hand saw). The earth is shaped like that for aeons so why blame it now?
@mapflu trees actually produce very little of the worlds oxygen, most of co2 is absorbed by the oceans . & we have more & more forest's every decade not less look @ maps the us forestry service produces & you will see a marked increase in the last 50 years alone.;
@circusboy90210 HUH? I'm not stating anything about its ability to produce O2, nor am I saying anything about our forest is decreasing. How did you come up with those?
@circusboy90210 By the way, maybe you'll be concerned by the phytoplankton's (the biggest absorbers of CO2) plight. Their numbers is steadily decreasing. That should be a concern to you.
@markgg1 The ones you are basing all your faith in are lying, yes. It is how they get funding from politicians, as this is a political movement, not a scientific one. We are just lucky there were 30,000 US scientists that were brave enough to expose and denounce it, or we would all believe the scam. Do you have any idea of what the implications are to letting them pass a CO2 tax?
@TheKickerboy99 what evidence do you have to say the scientists are lying? You know what... every single minority theory, from creationism, to UFO believers to climate skeptics, to the homeopaths ALWAYS share one hallmark 100% of the time. they all say theres a conspiracy going on, from the CIA to the Jews, to the liberal media.. etc etc... its boring.
Science by the sheer way it functions means it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to falsify data, as someone else can recreate the experiment to check
he's right... humans are to blame for global warming. I shouldn't of at all those bean and cheese burritos, all that carbon dioxide being released is not good :(
these people combine two different subjects, global warming and global polution. Yes we should stop poluting th earth and NO we cant do anything about the global warming, because we are in the atmosphere of sun....its just impossible to do anything about it.
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the warmest such value on record since 1880.
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2010 was the warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) warmer than the 20th century average.
-- NOAA, June, 2010
6/1/10, Arctic sea ice LOWEST on satellite record -NSIDC
Are humans to blame for global warming? In short, yes. The science is there and is clear that human beings are a signifigant cause. On top of that human beings have triggered effects in the natural world which is exacerbating it ie. release of gases that have been trapped in now melting permafrost among others. And that is just global warming, which is but a single catastrophe human beings (namely corporate power) are unleashing that is negatively effecting the fabric of life on earth
@Navywxman lol! Hidden in that last sentence is your true agenda "(namely corporate power)". Modern environmentalism is just a facade to overthrow capitalism. I haven't seen many scientific proofs supporting AGW that have held up under scrutiny, but I have seen quite a lot of fraud on your side of the debate. And whenever a skeptic voices their point of view, the AGW mob just put their hands over their ears and chant 'every scientist on the planet supports AGW!'. It's disgusting.
@obtree True agenda? lmao! Its called stating facts, corporate power, corporate malfeseance is at the heart of it. There is no alluding that. Actually 'modern environmentalism' is about giving a shit about the trashing of nature and people.
Of course you havent "seen many scientific proofs" since you are clearly not interested in seeing anything outside your ideology, thats pretty typical & frankly disgusting.
@Navywxman Oh great, I'm glad I'm talking to an expert! Tell me about an indisputable, concrete link between CO2 and climate change please. I'm only asking for one, but if you have more than one, I'll gladly listen.
And I'm sure corporate greed can explain all the environmental disasters that happened under the soviet regime eh? Some parts of eastern Europe still haven't recovered to this day. But never fear, the free market has the solution!
@obtree Did I say I was an expert? Just another thing your making up heh. Compared to you I probably am an expert. Name them in a comment? There isnt that kind of space. Do I have to do the work for you?
Under the soviets there were the same processes. They still functioned in a monetary system and tried to do things half asses on the cheap. Free market? Oh that make believe thing
@Navywxman I'm sorry! I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. OK, so you're not an expert, but you do seem quite convinced. All I'm asking for is what argument specifically convinced you? Maybe I can be swayed!
My point about free markets is simply this: Capitalism is the only thing that can create wealth, and wealth is the only thing that can develop newer, cleaner technologies. Capitalism is also the only proven way to encourage people to keep the environment clean.
@obtree There was not a single 'argument.' It was actually countless studies and reports. Its that this is being done by scientists from all backgrounds, cultures, religions etc. that are finding this to be the case. It also comes from my own background in weather.
That is a great deal of praise placed upon a system that has brought catastrophe ie. capitalism. Plus the reasoning is not supported. Also free markets are and always will be a fiction
@Navywxman I'm not asking for your life story, just give me one example. I have so much faith that you're right, but I need something just a little more concrete.
You argue that capitalism causes harm. I counter that private industry does less harm than governments, and much, much more good. My argument is incredibly well supported. Wherever there is capitalism, people are uplifted out of poverty, and able to sustain themselves with less impact on the environment.
@obtree Global warming isnt just about CO2 but that is a signifigant factor. The correlation between temperature and temp has been seen which fits observed data since that is a role of CO2. That among other warming gases have been ever increasingly pumped out by human beings since the industrial age. Your statement about capitalism is pure fiction let alone well supported. I see the cult has you
@Navywxman There is correlative data that links CO2 to temp, but the question is does CO2 drive temp or vice versa. My geology professor actually did research on this using some Greenland ice core samples. He found that CO2 levels lag behind temp by a few centuries. AGW proponents counter by saying that there is a positive feedback effect and they mainly use models to back that up, but I don't really buy it. It seems like they really have to jump through hoops to keep their argument afloat.
@obtree Sometimes it lags. But is there an event in hisotry that is comparable with the industrial revolution? The answer is no, so there is no similar event to compare with. The fact remains CO2 is a greehouse gas ie. absobs heat energy, humans have been flooding a finite space with them, temps have been rising. Plenty of elements of it for scientists to research but it doesnt change those facts any
@Navywxman actually you're wrong. There have been several volcanic events that have emitted comparable levels of CO2, and there has been little, if any change in temperature. In the 40's temperature started falling for 30 years straight, meanwhile the world was experiencing the fastest expansion of industry ever. Explain please.
The argument that we have been doing so much to disturb the environment, so we MUST be harming it is a tired one. It is completely unscientific, so try again.
@obtree OK, this is pretty pointless. I wish I were wrong but sadly not so. There is way too much to cover than appropriate for comments plus I see your committed to an ideology more than anything else and thats disappointing. Dont invest so much in ideology but focus on truth is all I can advise. The real world isn't as simple as a textbook or phrases of an ideology. Good luck to ya kid
@Navywxman Bahahaha! Yeah, I'm the one who is blinded by an ideology. Sure. I'm not the one who wrote a novel in his profile about the evils of capitalism. You are clearly an economic illiterate, and yet you advocate this crap with so much certainty. I just don't understand how your mind works. Read basic economics: a citizen's guide to the economy, by Thomas Sowell. I guarantee you will learn a lot.
@obtree It sounds like the book you mention impressed you a lot.
Have a look at this time line of capitalism;
watch?v=lJ3lV_lw1iQ
The invisible hand is not connected to a brain.
Capitalism keeps running into crisis, it saturates markets in myopic competition then cuts wages to stay in the game, thus nobody can afford to buy, markets collapse.
Because corps have all the money and power they just play the game harder..
Capitalism is killing our planet for insane desperate profit chasing.
@marsCubed Hey, I watched that video. Funny how there is never a "time line of socialism". I'm sure you'll find a shining story of success there.
That was a really well made video, but unfortunately the people who made it are also economic illiterates. Competition does not cut wages. Competition lowers prices and improves quality of products and services. If the job market is competitive, wages and benefits actually go up. That is basic economics. Proven science.
@obtree You live in a fantasy world, people are driven by necessity, wages in real terms have fallen hugely over decades, in the USA ppl hardly have vacations any-more, rates of profit have also fallen during this period. prison population rising. The only solution capital has is to cut wages more,
It takes two people working to raise a family or buy a home these days. inequality has soared.
right wing ideology is meaningless drivel to all but the peasantry.
@marsCubed let me ask you this: after continually applying more and more government to your problems, and seeing them get continually worse, why do you believe that more government will solve all your problems?
@marsCubed first of all i don't think you even understand what anarchy is. Anarchy is the state of non-governance; what you are describing sounds more like liberal socialism.
If you don't believe me, simply look at the record of history. It is extremely clear. Wherever countries have over-regulated their economies their economies begin to decline. Wherever markets are deregulated, people are uplifted from grinding poverty into better and better circumstances. Compare China to Hong Kong. (cont)
@marsCubed Compare Chile to the rest of SA. Look at India and China now that they encourage more free trade. Compare Greece, Spain or Italy to Czech. Compare the recovery of the stock market under FDR and the one that happened under Reagan. I bet you didn't even hear about that one, even though it was about the same severity as the great depression (although not nearly as lengthy).
Economics is not just something you can dismiss at will. It is science, and the proof behind it is rock solid.
@marsCubed yeah, in order to remain competitive, companies invest a portion of their profits into the business. This investment could come in the form of lower prices, better goods, better services, etc. But the bottom line is that companies don't like having to lose too much of their profits, so they adjust to market needs. That's why there is a lot more investment into computers vs typewriters. People with an actual stake in what they are producing make better choices than people without.
In reality capitalists are compelled to invest for profit. markets become saturated as others do the same, thus they need to increase levels of investment to survive. This becomes a vicious circle which leads to corruption of legislators and finance.
Corps have no alternative, levels of investment are huge. Nation states can be drawn in to protect resources and GDP etc.
It is competitive and blind, it requires larger and larger blocks to fail.
@marsCubed you have pretty much said the exact same thing in each of your posts. You have not once tried to rebut any of my arguments or provide any kind of evidence to support your claims. For that reason, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore. If you want to provide an actual argument other than the talking points you have been spewing at me then maybe I will be inclined to reply, but until then: goodbye. Best wishes.
Capitalism simply does not work, it can seem to work between crashes due to slack being taken up.. so for instance to raise a family takes 2 wage packets and zero vacations. education and health get stripped away too.
Then nobody can afford to buy anything.
'winning'; putting competitors out of business, only makes it worse as markets contract even more.
capitalism has been held together by dinos for years.
Cooperation works better, competition can be a fun extra.
@obtree Sweden, Norway, France, Germany.. large government and Liberal Constitution = better equalities, better health, better quality of living, less cirme, less poverty, better education.
A democratic government is us lookibg after ourselves in a organised way. I cannot give myself surgery, or build highways or teach my children science.. I rely on my society to get together and organize these things for me. My voice comes in the form of my tax money and my bote. No governent = shambles
@markgg1 I'm not saying we don't need any government, but on a daily basis I see things that would run better in a free market, or if it was more deregulated. The government should limit itself to performing 3 duties for us: protect our lives, protect our freedoms, and protect our property rights. Anything else can be performed better by the private sector. Obviously I see the advantage of pooling some of our money as a society and creating a safety net, but I cannot agree with a welfare state.
@obtree OK.. well we wont agree on politics, thats fine. But I do say, look at countries that have elaborate welfare systems (northern and western europe) and those that dont (USA, and more and more the UK) and than look at unemployment. You will see no correlation at all, so the argument 'handouts' make people lazy is simply untrue.
I agree its hard to justify claiming long term money of the state if your capable of work, but the issue is just more complex than that
@obtree simply untrue... we have had welfare in the UK for 50 years... unemployment has gone up and down in relation to the state of the economy. For example in this recession it went up by a couple of percent due to redundancies, meaning welfare costs went up. They are now returning to normal levels.
In the west it generally stands at 4%, regardless of welfare... Look at the figures and dont be blinded by ideology.
I have an open mind for data, and dont make assumptions on what I think is tru
@obtree OK.. well we wont agree on politics, thats fine. But I do say, look at countries that have elaborate welfare systems (northern and western europe) and those that dont (USA, and more and more the UK) and than look at unemployment. You will see no correlation at all, so the argument 'handouts' make people lazy is simply untrue.
I agree its hard to justify claiming long term money of the state if your capable of work, but the issue is just more complex than that
@markgg1 BTW, have you checked you facts at all? 3 of the 4 countries you mentioned were in the top 15 for most crime per capita worldwide (according to the UN in 2000). Sweden wasn't on the list, but I checked on wikipedia, and their crime rates were the highest of the 4 by far.
In a free market you can still rely on your fellow man; more so, because the government cannot possibly predict the demand of something.
@obtree ok,, more specifically violent crime and murder.. not petty crime which most would argue is not even immoral.
its not the amount of power a gov has thats the issue, it is what they do with the power. If the gov is properly governed by people, than they will work in the interests of people. I always find it amusing that the small goivernment brigade usually want big police and army.. so big government when it comes to force, but small gov when its things we need like health or transport
@marsCubed People should be free to naturally trade things.. This is capitalism. A pure socialism means that trade is banned. This requires enforcement,, and will just end up consting too mcuh to amintain, and is immoral.
Government should run our services that are essential, and private should run the unessential.
This is the basis of social democracy, and these countries are the most healthiest in terms of all factors such as health, education, crime etc..
@markgg1 Listen, I don't know if you are trying to dumb this down for me or something, but if not I think I understand it a bit better than you do.
CO2 absorbs short wave radiation from the sun, then emits long wave radiation. This means that some energy that would normally bounce off of the earth's surface back into space is trapped. Different wavelengths of radiation are absorbed at different rates. Some wavelengths are barely absorbed at all. This all depends on the molecular structure.
@obtree So therefore the more Co2 in the atmosphere, the more of the suns rays are absorbed creating heat.. therefore more Co2 = warmet climate. Fossil fuels create Co2 as a byproduct of hydrocarbons and oxygen reacting to produce energy.
Its ridiculously obvious that humans using more hydrocarbons makes a warmer climate. Only someone of immense self delusion can deny it.
@markgg1 Read my other post. There is a finite amount of energy that can absorbed.
I have no reason to believe my professors, or my old boss at the Ontario Geological Survey, or any of the other scientists that I talked with there (people with much, much better qualifications than Al Gore) are immensely self deluded.
@obtree Ok.... regardless of the idea the world is warming.. What single possible benefit does anyone get from falsely claiming the world is warming due to humans? I just want one.. as I cnnot think of one. The only people who get hurt if its true are oil companies, and perhaps some emplyees of oil companies. If it is true, we benefit from infinate energhy from the sun, and I imagine will be very cheap. A wind turbine in theory creates an infinate amont of energy without releasing any smoke
@markgg1 I can think of people who benefit from this false claim: carbon traders, green energy companies. Actually, the way carbon tax laws are written, many polluting companies can benefit from loopholes without even cutting emissions. Not to mention the fact that carbon regulation will increase government and destroy the private sector, appeasing everyone who hates capitalism.
@obtree Ok, so whats your propositoion to the fact fossil fuels will eventually run out. Also, fossil fuels produce air pollution in our cities.
This alone is enough for people to move away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels is a 19th century solution to 21st century problems. Even if co2 wasn't warming the planet (which it is) we should not be pumping gases into our atmosphere. It is an unsustainable situation. It will have to end at some point, so whats the harm in getting there now?
@obtree Yes.. im sure your friends are very clever, but the overall majority of people believe we are warming the planet.. ffs even my government agrees. I like to think my government has some very intelligent people advising it. I trust my government. I mean, they are just one source. New Scientist thinks the world is warming. Again, these guys know what they are talking about. I am no geologist, but I cant see how a source as credible as the New Scientist could get this wrong.
@markgg1 There once was a time when public opinion was in favor of a flat earth, or intelligent design, or that light traveled through a mystical ether.
@obtree I honestly cannot see why theres so much hostility. It makes complete economic sense. If we can use the suns energy, we have an INFINATE store of energy for 6 billion years. All we require is the infrastructure to be built, and the energy will theoretically be available forever (if we maintain it well). Hummers can run on biofuels, or hydrogen cells or electricity. Why the obsession with using oil from under the sea. The gulf spill alone is more of a need to move away old technologies
@obtree I admit in the short term it will cost money to build the infrastructure.. but this will create lots of jobs and once built that is it.. no need to drill holes in Alaska, or transport massive liners of oil from the gulf to Europe or the US.
This is not a liberal versus conservative debate, which the right have dreamed up.. this is simply sense vs nonsense. The only people benefiting from current situation is huge oil companies. We are letting corporate interest overise common good.
@obtree I will stop ranting now and hit the hay. Its 4am in the UK and I'm cold and want to get into bed. The heating's off on campus because they want to save money as the gas from Russia costs a fortune for Europe. Of course if the heat was generated by the suns energy, it wouldn't matter if the heat was left on 24 hours a day all year around.
Free energy... imagine that? Annoyingly we have the technology to do it, but we just cant get the political will to achieve this simple goal.
@markgg1 Quite a dream you have there. Except that energy is never free. In order to power my computer with solar cells, I discovered (after a 5 min search on ebay and some quick calculations) that it would probably cost me about $6000. And then I will only be able to use it on a sunny day. Since I do most of my computing at night, it will take quite a few years for those cells to pay for themselves. Now what would that investment look like for my house? For a steel industry? etc?
@obtree cumon now.... The sun also powers the air pressure system, therefore the wind and therefore the oceans, as well as natural processes such as fermentation to create alcohols (biofuels) and photosynthesis which powers all of nature via carbohydrates. I dont just mean solar cells. Also, you and me both know that if capitalism takes hold of green industry innovation and competition will drive down prices. The problem is this energy could be so cheap to produce that it may be unprofitable.
@obtree And here the problem... oil companies and energy companies will most likely see their product become so cheap they will make a lot less money as they cant use a adam smith style supply and demand on oil, where supply is falling and demand is rising. Using the suns energy means a constant unlimited supply, and demand will NEVER catch up to it as it produces trillons of kilowatts of energy per day. We cant allow corpoate interest to overide huanitys interests on this one.
@markgg1 as oil becomes too expensive, demand for solar and wind power will increase naturally. The reason there is no private investment in green energy yet is because there is no demand for it. We already have cheaper, more efficient sources in oil and natural gas.
@obtree Also, other more novel approcahes to creating energy can be looked into. Gravity could maybe be harnassed. In a way it is, because the tides are a result of the moons gravity so in some parts of the sea we have underwater generators. Us humans use a tin amount of the enrgy we have potentially around us. The earth and solar system is full of energy beyond our imagination, and yet we still burn dead compressed animals? If advanced aliens existed, they would find us primitively amusing.
@obtree one more thing... perhaps I look too far into the future, even before I die. I admit that fossil fuels wil probably last around the same time as my life but I know if something isnt done now and the oil runs out there will be a major crisis resulting in massive economic pressures. Economic pressures lead to desperation, dictatorships and wars. All this pointless suffering when weve got literally trillions of kilowatts shining on our heads giving us a tan.
@markgg1 Again you prove you don't understand economics. We don't just use a resource until there is nothing left. As a resource becomes more scarce, there is innovation and investment into new technologies and self rationing. This process is very gradual and natural. The crisis you are describing is pure fiction.
In fact, if we just stop all this government intervention and let events take their course, it will be a much less jarring transition.
@obtree This is analogous to private healthcare. If a private person sells it, he wants it as expensive as possible, wants you through the door as often as possible. There is 0 incentive to make you healthy, and preventative medicine This is why the USA has the most advanced technological health sector, but has the least healthy citizens in the west and pays the most for it. Same with energy. Oil companies have no incentive to invest in green energy as their product will lose its monetary value.
@markgg1 anyway, yeah CO2 absorbs energy from the sun and reflects it back to earth, but there is a finite amount of energy that it can absorb.
"The temperature of the earth has gone up quicker than any point recordable in earth history." My geology professors will disagree with you there. I haven't met one PhD geologist who agrees with AGW, BTW. But regardless, is the world really going to end over a 0.2 degree increase? The climate has changed in the past, but we still have polar bears.
@obtree yes, a finite amount of energy per CO2 molecule... the more CO2 molecules, the more energy it absorbs. The temperature has gone up quicker than any point. This is a fact based on all sorts of geological research.
What possible emotional pleasure do I get from claiming the world is getting warmer. This argument reminds me of the morons who think the world is 10k years old. Do they think I have an emotional attachment to a old earth, or a warming planet.. I just believe in facts, simple
@markgg1 listen, you are stating all these 'facts' and trying to frame my argument in petty bias, but you have not given me any reason to believe you have any background in science, have spoken to any actual scientists, or have done any of your own research. All you seem to have done is watch CNN and Al Gore's movie. You don't know what you are talking about, so inform yourself, and stop making stupid comments.
@obtree 'no background in science' - Im into a 2nd year of a medical science degree... I think this counts as a background in science. Also as I understand chemistry, CO2 absorbs solar energy per molecule, the more CO2 in the air = more absorption = more heat. Its actually 2st grade science. this 'theory' fits perfectly with the fact that theres a correlation between rising temperature and co2 levels. When oil runs out, were all screwed.
Denying it as Ive said before is simply ridiculous
@markgg1 Listen, you don't hear me making overarching statements about immunization or genetic diseases. You don't understand the science, so stop making an imbecile out of yourself.
@obtree No need to start insulting me. We just differ on some aspects of chemistry.
I know co2 absorbs heat, so the more of it in the air equals more absorption. Its very simple. If you cant grasp it, than thats your issue. Global warming will continue whether you understand it or not
@markgg1 The science you are referring to is based on man made models that can be made to come out with any result you want. Search a little more on how much oil you think there is, here in alberta alone they estimate enough to last for hundreds of years in our oil sands, the sands in Saskatchewan are double that, and have not even begun to be removed. It is not a conspiracy so much as an altering of the the truth to alarm people into a global energy tax. Don't think they could lie?
@TheKickerboy99 so let me get this straight... the government are falsifying the data so they can tax you more. By taxing you more, they become less popular, and does not affect their own pockets at all. All this also in light of the fact the oil lobby is hugely powerful, much more so than green lobby.
Comment removed
tdt5000 2 days ago
There is no doubt that some climate change is occurring, and also no doubt that we are partially responsible, but the fact is that our influence is greatly exaggerated, and also the negative effects that the small amount of change will have are also greatly exaggerated. And anything we do to try and stop it will have such a small effect that it will be completely pointless.
IHateRap1991 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on by Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. WE NEED IT NOW. The source is deuterium from the World’s Oceans – virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce."..could cost as little as 0.9c per kilowatt" See blog "the Big Picture by Andrew Horvath" July 01 post.
website “Star Scientific Limited”
Youtube video – “In the Footsteps of Fusion” + youtube channel
2110kop 5 months ago in playlist * Real Climate Science / Global Warming Info - NO BS *
This has been flagged as spam show
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
vechorik 6 months ago in playlist Energy & the Environment
Globel warming has been a Myth for years and still call real. There is 3,000 PHD's that tell you is is just a Myth and 120 PHDs will tell you it is real. the 120 PHD'S work off research grants that pay their pay checks every week !
the warming we have now is a natural thing that happens every 200 yrs.
turtle4aire 8 months ago 3
@turtle4aire do you have a list of all pro and con PHDs? if you do please send it to me.
ngogo70 7 months ago
These people are talking in aspirations. Not scientific facts.
Siegetower 9 months ago
Why are man made global warming skeptic always labelled as climate change deniers by you Dr SkunkBeard??
OtagoMark 9 months ago
Comment removed
Richard482 7 months ago
@Richard482 I'm not a global warming Skeptic.
OtagoMark 7 months ago
None denies Climate change!!!! we deny that man is the cause.... why are we always called climate deniers?? Silly bearded prick
OtagoMark 9 months ago
Has research proved man made Global Warming? or did the Sun do it when no one was looking? This is not Science it is Propaganda.
david222444 10 months ago
If California would just fall into the ocean, like has been promised for Generations, The worlds Green House Gas Problem would be solved. Those holier than though pontificators want to control everyone else's life. They are truly polluting the atmosphere with their emissions of co2 into the environment every time they open their mouths.
psy4s 1 year ago
Comment removed
daviddevall 1 year ago
@phantomscolts2 I guess its your opinion against thousands of scientists and everyone else with a brain who can connect dots together.
ProphecyRJ 1 year ago
Comment removed
daviddevall 1 year ago
@daviddevall Haha.
SlightyDisturbedNBK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DONT READ THIS CAUSE IT REALLY WORKS.YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF UR LIFE.TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE.HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS OR YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS.NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY.SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS.THIS IS SO SCARY BUT REALLY WORKS
mcpimp2 1 year ago
He gave no proof or evidence. Just insulted the scientists who disagree with him. At least they give evidence and proof for their theories. The more and more I look into this it does seem the sun theory is correct.
Finn001abd 1 year ago 2
@Finn001abd Alright, here's "proof or evidence" (although science doesn't deal with proof, but whatever). According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. And even before satellites were available, there has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century. According to the Max Planck Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.
ConscientiousMind 1 year ago
@ConscientiousMind At the moment the sun spot count is going down so that should suggest a decline in heat coming from the sun, but I'll look more into your point. Thank you for sharing. :)
Finn001abd 1 year ago
WHEN IS SOMONE GONNA GIVE ME EVIDENCE ITS NOT THE SUN
THATS ALL I WANT TO SEE, WILL NO ONE DO IT? WHERE ARE THE VIDEOS?
I'm pretty sure the ice on other planets in our solar system started melting too...
obviously that's not CO2 from our cars, tell me why the earth has this exception.
I'm like a damn flat earther >< I just want evidence that is not from Al Gore "the creator of the internet"
MirageScience 1 year ago
@MirageScience allright buddy, at first I suppose you take a look at the latest sun activity charts and the global warming charts an overlay them, so that the timeperiods matches. then you see that it is correct that there are some corelations. but for the last 20 years there aren't... ergo the sun is not the answer.
if you want evidence take a look at the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) or the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). especcialy the Charney Report.
cav3man 1 year ago
to get further... the theory of climate change isn't that new at all. around the beginning of the 20th century the first theories emerged. later in the thirties the theories where rechecked. then in the fifties the scientiest said... yep climate change is happening and we are the ones doing it.
this controversy was just started maybee 15 oder 20 years ago, 40 years after the scientiests conclusively said, we are the bad boys
cav3man 1 year ago
@MirageScience That's a valid question, it's nice that at least some climate skeptics are asking instead of flatly denying. :) If you're genuinely interested in the truth, then hopefully this will convince you at least a little bit. Check this link out, it covers most arguments and objections against climate science including the role of the Sun.
grist (dot) org (slash) article (slash) series (slash) skeptics
(Sorry for the clumsy link!)
ConscientiousMind 1 year ago
@MirageScience "WHEN IS SOMONE GONNA GIVE ME EVIDENCE ITS NOT THE SUN
THATS ALL I WANT TO SEE, WILL NO ONE DO IT? WHERE ARE THE VIDEOS?"
No need to yell. The video you're looking for is right here on youtube; search for "Crock of the Week - Solar Schmolar" and happy viewing. But videos are not evidence, you probably realize that.
Meurglys33 1 year ago
Humans are to blame for much more....
formerutuber 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
Another proud graduate of East Anglia. Elitist shit head
garybsg 1 year ago
The new knowledge is that AGW is happening, but at an almost immeasurable rate, our current warming is a natural trend that has happened for billions of years. Watch Henrick Svensmark for the truth. 5 part series, very important to watch it.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
wow a poem makes your assumptions correct? see the twist nobody is denying climate change period just that man is not causing it.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 its fritrating hearing statements like this. Its such simple science it astounds me someone can deny it. We burn fossil fuels. The reaction is fossil fuel + o2 = co2 + H20 (similar to how living things burn fuel, except our hydrocarbons are carbohydrates, but the principals are the same)
This releases co2 into the atmosphere. the co2 molecue holds heat well. Therefore the more heat shined on the co2, means the warmer the surrounding air.
more co2 therefore equals warmer air.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 Also i understand how FRITRATING it is arguing with brainless people that follow the scam like sheep. Please wake up to the fact that its a natural warming trend that is occurring at the same rate as the last two. For which we could have had no CO2 foot print. If you think there is a consensus, tell that to the 30,000 scientists on the petition against the alarmism. Against the energy tax that will skyrocket energy prices, and kill billions.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Ive looked at the evidence carefully as a science student who always is sceptical of claims. Even without any data at all you could make a good prediction about humans raising the temperature just based on the knowledge that we burn 100+ tonnes of co2 per day, and understanding the thermal physics of the molecule. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and heats up matter when radiation hits it. It also works for other planets in the solar system.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 What do you say would be the result of a doubling of current CO2 levels?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 co2 doubling? this would cause even more warming of earth.. the exact figures I dont know as I am not a earth scientist.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 Look at Henrick Svensmarks 5 part series on here if you want the truth. If you want to support Al's tax program based on computer models then carry on, just don't try and convince anyone without the facts. The current warming trend is happening at exactly the same rate as the last two, for which we could not have had any effect.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@markgg1 if only it were so simple . complex machines like our planet do not work so simply. our planet is so complex even the most sophisticated computers cannot even begin to model completely or more than 5 day's in advanced.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 Again, its sch simple science I cant see how you miss it.
volcanoes pump less than 1% of the CO2 into the atmosphere, 99+% comes from human involvement,
even if it were all lies, using fossil fuels is a dirty polluting 19th century solution to a 21st century solution. All we need to build is the right infrastructre and we would have free energy as the sun constantly provides it via solar energy, tidal forces, and win.
Burning million year old dead animals is a poor solution
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 evedently you have not read the lead report on co2 @ mankinds input humans produce less than 5% of all ghg's.
fossil fuels are made mainly from microbes not dead animals. it has athe most amount of energy per unit & is virtually unlimited compared to our use. do some math before you parrot from brainwashing & ignorance.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 Ok lets for one second postulate that humans are not causing global warming.
Fossil fuels are still bad news for simple reasons. They require a expensive infrastructure system to bring them to people, as well as release pollutants. There is a risk of oil spills into the oceans, and also the ecological damage from mining, and drilling.
The suns energy through wind, solar power, tide forces is an UNLIMITED supply It only requires we buld the infrastructure than sit back and relax
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 what are you worried about expense?? that money employs millions of people. it's only money. nat resources are here for us to use not to lie unused. there is risk in everything you do in life.
if your so worried about expense wind, solar etc require even more expense & are not reliable. crude oil has more energy pre unit thatn any other form of energy & it's here for us to use. most of the exhaust is h20 anyhow. just need bigger penalty's for spillers.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 no.... green energy is cheaper because it is infinite. No business in the world is interested in green tech cause little money will be made from it, hence why it is generally only public owned organisations that have any interest i.e. government. Yes some of the exhaust is h2o, but also co2 plus pollutants.
You still haven't answered the fundamental question as to what benefit does using fossil fuels give over green alternatives?
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 what benefit?? it's easy to obtain. even if we have to dig 20 miles or more to get it the bore holes will give us access to more thermal energy for the planets core. its a nat resource that was placed here for us to use not to waste by letting it sit by idly.
most of the exhuast 98% is h20 from almost any combustion process. co2 is not a pollutant plants & algae need it to live. no2 is not a pollutant. mankind contibution to the atmosphere is very miniman.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 98% is not water.
the chemical reaction for burning a C5 hydrocarbon is C5H12 + O2 -> 5CO2 + 6H20 (or there about). It is completely wrong to say 98% if the exhaust is water.
Noone suggested CO2 is a pollutant, but it is a global warming gas due to its ability to hold heat from thermal radiation. Its all very basic chemistry and it cannot be argued with.,
Where are you reading this stuff?
markgg1 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 its basic atomic theory. matter cannot be created or destroyed therefore when you burn carbon based matter, it will release a carbon based gas. The carbon cant just disappear
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 the carbon transforms into something else. 98% of crude oil combustion is h20 not carbon. mankind only creates 5% of ghg's. this is according to the ipcc report. in a chemical equation you can "lose" carbon. you need some basic chemistry lessons .
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 I keep starting to write a response to your claim that the carbon is 'lost' in the reaction, but frankly I don't know how to respond to this and keep deleting my post.
Im speechless.
markgg1 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 ok, ive composed myself.
A fossil fuel is a chain of carbon bonds with hydrogens attached. When this bond is broken (with the help of oxygen) energy is released (it combusts)
The waste from this reaction must contain all the atoms that were put in, so carbon joins to the oxygen (carbon dioxide) and the hydrogens also bind to oxygen (H2O or water)
every reaction in nature must equal out. Same number of atoms going in, must come out. Its physically impossible to 'lose' atoms.
markgg1 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 so try to imagine the tonnes and tonnes of oil, and coal etc we burn in our planes, cars, factories, power stations. every carbon atom in these chains is converted to one molecule of CO2 which is pumped into the atmosphere.
This is scientific fact. Just like the sky is blue, light is a wave, and the earth is a sphere. This is NOT up for a debate. If you don't understand this, read a basic chemistry text book.
gosh, no wander you don't think humans are contributing to warming.
markgg1 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 the next part of the storey is that the carbon dioxide accumulates. It has the ability to hold thermal energy (again a fact) and so the more of it in the air, the more thermal energy from the sun is absorbed. The more trees failed means less CO2 absorbed (as trees convert co2 to carbohydrates which we use for our energy, in the same way a car does) exacerbating the problem.
There is a clear trend between more co2 in the atmosphere, and raised temperature. The link is too strong.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 explain our so called accumulation . trees are a minor player in scrubbing co2 algae actually does the majority of the work.
your link has very little probability. even if it could be proven 1 degree over 100 years is nothing to worry about. this is not a reason to over regulate peoples lifestyles.
circusboy90210 1 year ago 2
@circusboy90210 Im not wathcing any u tube vids making its bold claims. Established science, is established simply because the evidence supports it.
Therefore by default one must agree with it.
An analogy for me is alternative medicen. All the alternative medicines that were proven to work, were simply called medicine.
You are in the same box as the UFO people, creationists, elvis believers, and nazis. all of these ideas are always based on paranoid delusions without any actual hard evidence.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 actually the real truth is the science behind global warming is based on bad numbers so there is no science , I don't have to agree with what is not true.
also according to your precious ipcc(who has no scientific legs to stand on) mankind only pproduces 5% of ghg's , right there alone tells you anthro cc is not possible.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 ok so the scientists are just lying?
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 believe what you need to believe, funding controls the outcome. it's the temperature measuring stations that went off line , the subsea ocean buoy's that read erroneous sub sea temps. instead of air temps( sub sea temps are vastly higher) there are so many things wrong with this temp data it's impossible to make any valid statements based on this much less scientific theory.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 what about ice core samples, and the simple chemistry of the CO2 molecule, as well as the fact of deforestation? This along with the shringking of the ice on the poles, and the directly obervable rising temparatures?
are the scientists lying about this also?
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 science has proven heat leads co2. deforestation?? that has nothing to do with this subject if anything increased co2 makes for more forest. the north pole is shrinking while the south is growing. remember the earth is not a sphere it's like a pear and the north pole is more likely to absorb more solar heat.
scientist also have to come up with the results wanted or they loose their funding.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 how exactly does the shape of the earth affect absorption of solar heat at poles? deforestation means less trees to absorb the co2 just to clarify. CO2 absorbs heat, this is simply a fact of chemistry, hence why other planets are so hot.
What evidence do you have to say the scientists are lying to get funded?
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 we have more and more forest's every day thanks to the commodization of lumber it's more valuable to keep trees growing than to just strip farm them as we used to. However trees ability to absorb co2 is highly overrated, most of the co2 is absorbed by plankton & other diatoms. the shape of the earth?? well being pear shaped means the north pole is more perependicular to the suns incoming ray's causing it to absorb more energy than a round one. other planets have no atmosphere stillwarm
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 It is a well known fact the forests are being hacked down to make space for farming hence why many green groups are concerned. look it up. also trees absorb CO2 to turn into sugar that we use as fuel via photosynthesis. I can assure you trees absorb a lot of CO2 (I dont know specifics).
There are over a trillion trillion planets, I can assure you many of them have atmospheres. Mars has an atmosphere of mainly Co2 and is very hot because of it. Again look it up
markgg1 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 on the pole thing... the ICe has been there for tens of thousands of years, and since industrialization has there been a record decline. Again, these are all FACTS ewhich cannot be argued with.
yes, the planet changes temperature occasionally, but this happens very slowly over thousands of years. the temperature of earth has risen faster than any point in our history and has a direct correlation with the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. We burn hydrocarbons which creates the Co2
markgg1 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 fuel is made up of a highly reduce hydrocarbon. This is the same for animals as well, except our fuel is carbohydrate.
the principal is exactly the same. the carbon carbon bonds break and react with oxygen to release energy. co2 is the byproduct as well as water.
we burn tonnes of hydrocarbons meaning we release tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Co2 absorbs the suns heat.
its such simple science it is annoying people can try to dismiss the blatantly obvious facts.
markgg1 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 even if using fossil fuel wasnt heating the planet (which it is) it is a finite resource, and is a pollutant.
It is unsustaineable and we need to use the suns energy via tides and wind eventually... why not just do it now.
All one needs to do is build the infrastructre, such as wind farms and the energy is FREE forever as wind never stops obviously. No drilling needed, no oil spills, no rising oil prices, no wars for oil, no pollution from burning them.
its fucking obvious.
markgg1 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 IM not even a tree hugging lefty... im seeing this from a sensible economic long term perspective. we waste our money on oil, coal and gas when we can get energy for free. we waste resources and our wealth on supplying the resources to us.
It is a silly, expensive, polluting situation as well as the untold damage done to the planet. I hate to sound like a tree hugger here, but us humans have one small planet to look after and if we mess it up now our future is over.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 finite yes as there is so much room in the planet. but for practical thinking there is no shortage of any fossil fuels when you combine coal, nat gas,crude oil, & tar sands we have more than a few thousand years worth of energy. tree hugging is awesome just need to base it on sound science. we spend less than 20% of our gdp on energy so this is not wastefull. besides that's what money is for. to spend on things you like.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 but di you want to still tear up the ground, pollute the air, take the risk of warming the planet, and oil spills, and basically the foul smell and problem of asthma in the city simply because you refuse to use common sense and see we can get energy for free after we simply build some infrastructre.
we need jobs to be created at the mo.. what better way is a huge green infrastructure project in the rich countries? that would cure unemployment, and cure the energy crises.
markgg1 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 That kind of thinking is wrong! Earth has limited resources. You also made wrong assumptions in your calculations, some experts calculated that fossil fuels will run out in 2043. Also you have not considered that we are increasing in number exponentially, so our needs rise exponentially as well. This is also true to space, water, food, etc.
If we think and assume things like you did, we would always crave more and more and one day reality struck and there would be no more left.
mapflu 1 year ago
@mapflu no that kind of thinking is completely correct. the earth is limited by politics & greed not by what it can actually produce to keep people alive & thriving. the gulf oil drilling site would have boosted production by almost 305. there is no shortage of anything our population is not eponential.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 Limited by politics? Earth is a finite amount. Approximating it by assuming it's infinite is foolish. We all already about to deplete it.
And greed? Its greed that is causing all this depletion right now.
Where did u get the no.?
Population might not be exactly exponential but it is increasing fast, and it seems you does not include increase of pop. in your calculations. Its almost increasing by 1 trillion per 10 years.
mapflu 1 year ago
@mapflu there is no lack of any natural resourcees. the planet is way bigger than you can fathom . we occupy less than 4% of the airable land mass. the crust of the planet is about 20 miles thick and full of very usable nat resources to think that we have the capability to drain all of that is not mathematically possible.
the only reason people starve is governments that horde the food so the people starve not lack of it.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 We occupy little but how much do we really need? Say we live in cities, but is oxygen made in cities? Does lumber come from cities? maybe fishes come from cites. The answer is no! They came from places we have not occupied. So where do they came and how large are this places be to support us? If you include that, your numbers would explode.
It might be 20 mile thick, but most of it is rock. Oil occurs only in small pockets (and are hard to find). Again you overestimate.
mapflu 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 fossil fuels are finite. the suns energy will be burning for the next 4 billion years. The moon will pull the tides around for a very long time also.
I just dont see the positive argument for still using fossil fuels. They are a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem.
What possible advantage over wind, solar, tidal power does fossil fuels have?
Infact, building a huge infrastructure project would create millions of jobs, and is precisely what the west needs at the mo
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 our planet has enough nat gas in one location to provide our needs for a couple of thousand years & in that time even more will be produced. it's a sort of solar power diatoms absorb energy die then convert to methane.
time knows no bounds so your 21 cent arguement is a fallacy .
the west has plenty of work.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 yes all energy on earth comes ultimately from the sun. Most of us know this already.
But using fossil fuels is so inefficient. It takes millions of years to produce, and is converting energy into reduced carbons, and than oxidising them, releasing tonnes of co2.
2000 years or 2 years its irrelevant. Fossil fuels are finite, inefficient, and polluting the environment with toxins. Its so obvious I don't even know why you can defend it.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 finite yes but on the scale we are dealing with virtually infinite. the planet is huge compared to us we are mere microbes to the planet. abiotic theory tells us that oil does not take millions of years. oil can be made withing day's using diatoms.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 Oh please be serious. This theory is extremely controversial,, it is not even properly tested and all the evidence goes against it. Its a mere hypothesis and not accepted by the vast majority of scientists.
markgg1 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 LOL! heat leads CO2! LOL! CO2 is a product of combustion (burning) not merely heat. More CO2 -> more forest is false. God! There is little forest left already! Why can't you see that. Also deforestation releases a lot of CO2 because it usually means that the forest are burned or cut with fuel burning machineries (wonder how could you could deforest with a hand saw). The earth is shaped like that for aeons so why blame it now?
mapflu 1 year ago
@mapflu trees actually produce very little of the worlds oxygen, most of co2 is absorbed by the oceans . & we have more & more forest's every decade not less look @ maps the us forestry service produces & you will see a marked increase in the last 50 years alone.;
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 HUH? I'm not stating anything about its ability to produce O2, nor am I saying anything about our forest is decreasing. How did you come up with those?
mapflu 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 By the way, maybe you'll be concerned by the phytoplankton's (the biggest absorbers of CO2) plight. Their numbers is steadily decreasing. That should be a concern to you.
mapflu 1 year ago
@markgg1 The ones you are basing all your faith in are lying, yes. It is how they get funding from politicians, as this is a political movement, not a scientific one. We are just lucky there were 30,000 US scientists that were brave enough to expose and denounce it, or we would all believe the scam. Do you have any idea of what the implications are to letting them pass a CO2 tax?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 what evidence do you have to say the scientists are lying? You know what... every single minority theory, from creationism, to UFO believers to climate skeptics, to the homeopaths ALWAYS share one hallmark 100% of the time. they all say theres a conspiracy going on, from the CIA to the Jews, to the liberal media.. etc etc... its boring.
Science by the sheer way it functions means it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to falsify data, as someone else can recreate the experiment to check
markgg1 1 year ago
he's right... humans are to blame for global warming. I shouldn't of at all those bean and cheese burritos, all that carbon dioxide being released is not good :(
FrumpyShakes 1 year ago
these people combine two different subjects, global warming and global polution. Yes we should stop poluting th earth and NO we cant do anything about the global warming, because we are in the atmosphere of sun....its just impossible to do anything about it.
carbonseven1st 1 year ago
Haven't we beaten this topic to death already?
Mrmoc7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT GLOBAL COOLING?
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the warmest such value on record since 1880.
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2010 was the warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) warmer than the 20th century average.
-- NOAA, June, 2010
6/1/10, Arctic sea ice LOWEST on satellite record -NSIDC
goog2k 1 year ago
First of all, there IS no global warming. Secondly, "climate change" has multiple causes.
BankFace 1 year ago
Are humans to blame for global warming? In short, yes. The science is there and is clear that human beings are a signifigant cause. On top of that human beings have triggered effects in the natural world which is exacerbating it ie. release of gases that have been trapped in now melting permafrost among others. And that is just global warming, which is but a single catastrophe human beings (namely corporate power) are unleashing that is negatively effecting the fabric of life on earth
Navywxman 1 year ago
@Navywxman lol! Hidden in that last sentence is your true agenda "(namely corporate power)". Modern environmentalism is just a facade to overthrow capitalism. I haven't seen many scientific proofs supporting AGW that have held up under scrutiny, but I have seen quite a lot of fraud on your side of the debate. And whenever a skeptic voices their point of view, the AGW mob just put their hands over their ears and chant 'every scientist on the planet supports AGW!'. It's disgusting.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree True agenda? lmao! Its called stating facts, corporate power, corporate malfeseance is at the heart of it. There is no alluding that. Actually 'modern environmentalism' is about giving a shit about the trashing of nature and people.
Of course you havent "seen many scientific proofs" since you are clearly not interested in seeing anything outside your ideology, thats pretty typical & frankly disgusting.
Navywxman 1 year ago
@Navywxman Oh great, I'm glad I'm talking to an expert! Tell me about an indisputable, concrete link between CO2 and climate change please. I'm only asking for one, but if you have more than one, I'll gladly listen.
And I'm sure corporate greed can explain all the environmental disasters that happened under the soviet regime eh? Some parts of eastern Europe still haven't recovered to this day. But never fear, the free market has the solution!
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree Did I say I was an expert? Just another thing your making up heh. Compared to you I probably am an expert. Name them in a comment? There isnt that kind of space. Do I have to do the work for you?
Under the soviets there were the same processes. They still functioned in a monetary system and tried to do things half asses on the cheap. Free market? Oh that make believe thing
Navywxman 1 year ago
@Navywxman I'm sorry! I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. OK, so you're not an expert, but you do seem quite convinced. All I'm asking for is what argument specifically convinced you? Maybe I can be swayed!
My point about free markets is simply this: Capitalism is the only thing that can create wealth, and wealth is the only thing that can develop newer, cleaner technologies. Capitalism is also the only proven way to encourage people to keep the environment clean.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree There was not a single 'argument.' It was actually countless studies and reports. Its that this is being done by scientists from all backgrounds, cultures, religions etc. that are finding this to be the case. It also comes from my own background in weather.
That is a great deal of praise placed upon a system that has brought catastrophe ie. capitalism. Plus the reasoning is not supported. Also free markets are and always will be a fiction
Navywxman 1 year ago
@Navywxman I'm not asking for your life story, just give me one example. I have so much faith that you're right, but I need something just a little more concrete.
You argue that capitalism causes harm. I counter that private industry does less harm than governments, and much, much more good. My argument is incredibly well supported. Wherever there is capitalism, people are uplifted out of poverty, and able to sustain themselves with less impact on the environment.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree Global warming isnt just about CO2 but that is a signifigant factor. The correlation between temperature and temp has been seen which fits observed data since that is a role of CO2. That among other warming gases have been ever increasingly pumped out by human beings since the industrial age. Your statement about capitalism is pure fiction let alone well supported. I see the cult has you
Navywxman 1 year ago
@Navywxman There is correlative data that links CO2 to temp, but the question is does CO2 drive temp or vice versa. My geology professor actually did research on this using some Greenland ice core samples. He found that CO2 levels lag behind temp by a few centuries. AGW proponents counter by saying that there is a positive feedback effect and they mainly use models to back that up, but I don't really buy it. It seems like they really have to jump through hoops to keep their argument afloat.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree Sometimes it lags. But is there an event in hisotry that is comparable with the industrial revolution? The answer is no, so there is no similar event to compare with. The fact remains CO2 is a greehouse gas ie. absobs heat energy, humans have been flooding a finite space with them, temps have been rising. Plenty of elements of it for scientists to research but it doesnt change those facts any
Navywxman 1 year ago
@Navywxman actually you're wrong. There have been several volcanic events that have emitted comparable levels of CO2, and there has been little, if any change in temperature. In the 40's temperature started falling for 30 years straight, meanwhile the world was experiencing the fastest expansion of industry ever. Explain please.
The argument that we have been doing so much to disturb the environment, so we MUST be harming it is a tired one. It is completely unscientific, so try again.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree OK, this is pretty pointless. I wish I were wrong but sadly not so. There is way too much to cover than appropriate for comments plus I see your committed to an ideology more than anything else and thats disappointing. Dont invest so much in ideology but focus on truth is all I can advise. The real world isn't as simple as a textbook or phrases of an ideology. Good luck to ya kid
Navywxman 1 year ago
@Navywxman Bahahaha! Yeah, I'm the one who is blinded by an ideology. Sure. I'm not the one who wrote a novel in his profile about the evils of capitalism. You are clearly an economic illiterate, and yet you advocate this crap with so much certainty. I just don't understand how your mind works. Read basic economics: a citizen's guide to the economy, by Thomas Sowell. I guarantee you will learn a lot.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree It sounds like the book you mention impressed you a lot.
Have a look at this time line of capitalism;
watch?v=lJ3lV_lw1iQ
The invisible hand is not connected to a brain.
Capitalism keeps running into crisis, it saturates markets in myopic competition then cuts wages to stay in the game, thus nobody can afford to buy, markets collapse.
Because corps have all the money and power they just play the game harder..
Capitalism is killing our planet for insane desperate profit chasing.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed Hey, I watched that video. Funny how there is never a "time line of socialism". I'm sure you'll find a shining story of success there.
That was a really well made video, but unfortunately the people who made it are also economic illiterates. Competition does not cut wages. Competition lowers prices and improves quality of products and services. If the job market is competitive, wages and benefits actually go up. That is basic economics. Proven science.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree You live in a fantasy world, people are driven by necessity, wages in real terms have fallen hugely over decades, in the USA ppl hardly have vacations any-more, rates of profit have also fallen during this period. prison population rising. The only solution capital has is to cut wages more,
It takes two people working to raise a family or buy a home these days. inequality has soared.
right wing ideology is meaningless drivel to all but the peasantry.
Most PPL have had enough.
marsCubed 1 year ago
Comment removed
obtree 1 year ago
@marsCubed Once again, economics is not just an idea, it is a science. This is the way science works:
1) You take observations about the world we live in.
2) You develop a hypothesis based on your observations, about why the world works the way it does.
3)You test your hypothesis, attempting to falsify it.
The progressive alternative to this is:
1) Come to a conclusion about why the world works the way it does.
2) Frame your observations to support your claim.
3) Skip the test.
obtree 1 year ago
@marsCubed let me ask you this: after continually applying more and more government to your problems, and seeing them get continually worse, why do you believe that more government will solve all your problems?
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree Anarchy is also a state of Government.
What we need to see is fewer corps in Govt, and less corp lobbies. so that the voice of reason regular ppl debating gets some hearing.
It's mad chases for profit, unregulated, rapes of our planet, lives and resources which wastes and damages so much.
Blocks get bigger, crashes and damage get worse.
The invisible hand of the market is not connected to a brain.
Tax the top 5% back to Earth orbit.
We need a decent, sane, well regulated economy.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed first of all i don't think you even understand what anarchy is. Anarchy is the state of non-governance; what you are describing sounds more like liberal socialism.
If you don't believe me, simply look at the record of history. It is extremely clear. Wherever countries have over-regulated their economies their economies begin to decline. Wherever markets are deregulated, people are uplifted from grinding poverty into better and better circumstances. Compare China to Hong Kong. (cont)
obtree 1 year ago
@marsCubed Compare Chile to the rest of SA. Look at India and China now that they encourage more free trade. Compare Greece, Spain or Italy to Czech. Compare the recovery of the stock market under FDR and the one that happened under Reagan. I bet you didn't even hear about that one, even though it was about the same severity as the great depression (although not nearly as lengthy).
Economics is not just something you can dismiss at will. It is science, and the proof behind it is rock solid.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree Capitalism is a system where merchants employ workers to make commodities.
these are sold on markets, they pay themselves & workers.
the remainder is invested to enhance competitive advantage (capital).
But competitors do the same.
Investment soars in competition, saturation, crash.
Recovery is buy-up. blocks get bigger, crashes get worse; mass unemployment.. lost investment sheer waste.
inequality grows, wages get ground down, nobody can afford to buy.
free-market capitalism is stupid.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed yeah, in order to remain competitive, companies invest a portion of their profits into the business. This investment could come in the form of lower prices, better goods, better services, etc. But the bottom line is that companies don't like having to lose too much of their profits, so they adjust to market needs. That's why there is a lot more investment into computers vs typewriters. People with an actual stake in what they are producing make better choices than people without.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree
In reality capitalists are compelled to invest for profit. markets become saturated as others do the same, thus they need to increase levels of investment to survive. This becomes a vicious circle which leads to corruption of legislators and finance.
Corps have no alternative, levels of investment are huge. Nation states can be drawn in to protect resources and GDP etc.
It is competitive and blind, it requires larger and larger blocks to fail.
capitalism is stupid, wasteful & nasty.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed you have pretty much said the exact same thing in each of your posts. You have not once tried to rebut any of my arguments or provide any kind of evidence to support your claims. For that reason, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore. If you want to provide an actual argument other than the talking points you have been spewing at me then maybe I will be inclined to reply, but until then: goodbye. Best wishes.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree You have an argument?.
Capitalism simply does not work, it can seem to work between crashes due to slack being taken up.. so for instance to raise a family takes 2 wage packets and zero vacations. education and health get stripped away too.
Then nobody can afford to buy anything.
'winning'; putting competitors out of business, only makes it worse as markets contract even more.
capitalism has been held together by dinos for years.
Cooperation works better, competition can be a fun extra.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@obtree Sweden, Norway, France, Germany.. large government and Liberal Constitution = better equalities, better health, better quality of living, less cirme, less poverty, better education.
A democratic government is us lookibg after ourselves in a organised way. I cannot give myself surgery, or build highways or teach my children science.. I rely on my society to get together and organize these things for me. My voice comes in the form of my tax money and my bote. No governent = shambles
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 I'm not saying we don't need any government, but on a daily basis I see things that would run better in a free market, or if it was more deregulated. The government should limit itself to performing 3 duties for us: protect our lives, protect our freedoms, and protect our property rights. Anything else can be performed better by the private sector. Obviously I see the advantage of pooling some of our money as a society and creating a safety net, but I cannot agree with a welfare state.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree OK.. well we wont agree on politics, thats fine. But I do say, look at countries that have elaborate welfare systems (northern and western europe) and those that dont (USA, and more and more the UK) and than look at unemployment. You will see no correlation at all, so the argument 'handouts' make people lazy is simply untrue.
I agree its hard to justify claiming long term money of the state if your capable of work, but the issue is just more complex than that
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 a more reliable way of looking at it is to compare unemployment rates before and after increasing welfare. They always go up my friend.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree simply untrue... we have had welfare in the UK for 50 years... unemployment has gone up and down in relation to the state of the economy. For example in this recession it went up by a couple of percent due to redundancies, meaning welfare costs went up. They are now returning to normal levels.
In the west it generally stands at 4%, regardless of welfare... Look at the figures and dont be blinded by ideology.
I have an open mind for data, and dont make assumptions on what I think is tru
markgg1 1 year ago
@obtree Watch that Al-Gore video... very informative. Are you saying that Al-Gore just made those facts up he used as data?
If so dont you think someone would have taken him and the filmmakers to task for it?
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 they did. Or tried rather. There are 35 SIGNIFICANT errors in that movie.
watch?v=BgQX3ndQQg4&feature=PlayList&p=F047BB2FFD1A2560&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=31
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree OK.. well we wont agree on politics, thats fine. But I do say, look at countries that have elaborate welfare systems (northern and western europe) and those that dont (USA, and more and more the UK) and than look at unemployment. You will see no correlation at all, so the argument 'handouts' make people lazy is simply untrue.
I agree its hard to justify claiming long term money of the state if your capable of work, but the issue is just more complex than that
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 BTW, have you checked you facts at all? 3 of the 4 countries you mentioned were in the top 15 for most crime per capita worldwide (according to the UN in 2000). Sweden wasn't on the list, but I checked on wikipedia, and their crime rates were the highest of the 4 by far.
In a free market you can still rely on your fellow man; more so, because the government cannot possibly predict the demand of something.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree ok,, more specifically violent crime and murder.. not petty crime which most would argue is not even immoral.
its not the amount of power a gov has thats the issue, it is what they do with the power. If the gov is properly governed by people, than they will work in the interests of people. I always find it amusing that the small goivernment brigade usually want big police and army.. so big government when it comes to force, but small gov when its things we need like health or transport
markgg1 1 year ago
@marsCubed People should be free to naturally trade things.. This is capitalism. A pure socialism means that trade is banned. This requires enforcement,, and will just end up consting too mcuh to amintain, and is immoral.
Government should run our services that are essential, and private should run the unessential.
This is the basis of social democracy, and these countries are the most healthiest in terms of all factors such as health, education, crime etc..
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 You make little sense.
The countries with the highest tax on the top 5% also have the highest standards of living and most equal and wealthy populations on the planet.
best edu and health.
They also have the most regulated banks with most social welfare projects.,
Namely Norway and Denmark, although the rest of Northern Europe is similar.
They did not crash like deregulated profiteering conservative states,
In Greece 30% of GDP was undeclared !
Magic market trickle down is a scam.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@markgg1 You make little sense.
The countries with the highest tax on the top 5% also have the highest standards of living and most equal and wealthy populations on the planet.
best educ and health.
They also have the most regulated banks with most social welfare projects.,
Namely Norway and Denmark, although the rest of Northern Europe is similar.
They did not crash like deregulated profiteering conservative states,
In Greece 30% of GDP was undeclared!
Magic market trickle down is a scam.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed Read me post again carefully.
markgg1 1 year ago
@obtree Three repsonses to your skepticism. the molecule CO2 is known to absorb energy from the sun and heat up. This is a chemicla fact.
The rate of CO2 has grown massively in the atmosphere since industrialization.
The temperature of the earth has gone up quicker than any point recordable in earth history.
Fossil fuels are a finite resource, we should be looking at new technologies simply as a matter of economy and not just the environment.
Its simply unsustainable.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 Listen, I don't know if you are trying to dumb this down for me or something, but if not I think I understand it a bit better than you do.
CO2 absorbs short wave radiation from the sun, then emits long wave radiation. This means that some energy that would normally bounce off of the earth's surface back into space is trapped. Different wavelengths of radiation are absorbed at different rates. Some wavelengths are barely absorbed at all. This all depends on the molecular structure.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree So therefore the more Co2 in the atmosphere, the more of the suns rays are absorbed creating heat.. therefore more Co2 = warmet climate. Fossil fuels create Co2 as a byproduct of hydrocarbons and oxygen reacting to produce energy.
Its ridiculously obvious that humans using more hydrocarbons makes a warmer climate. Only someone of immense self delusion can deny it.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 Read my other post. There is a finite amount of energy that can absorbed.
I have no reason to believe my professors, or my old boss at the Ontario Geological Survey, or any of the other scientists that I talked with there (people with much, much better qualifications than Al Gore) are immensely self deluded.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree Ok.... regardless of the idea the world is warming.. What single possible benefit does anyone get from falsely claiming the world is warming due to humans? I just want one.. as I cnnot think of one. The only people who get hurt if its true are oil companies, and perhaps some emplyees of oil companies. If it is true, we benefit from infinate energhy from the sun, and I imagine will be very cheap. A wind turbine in theory creates an infinate amont of energy without releasing any smoke
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 I can think of people who benefit from this false claim: carbon traders, green energy companies. Actually, the way carbon tax laws are written, many polluting companies can benefit from loopholes without even cutting emissions. Not to mention the fact that carbon regulation will increase government and destroy the private sector, appeasing everyone who hates capitalism.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree Ok, so whats your propositoion to the fact fossil fuels will eventually run out. Also, fossil fuels produce air pollution in our cities.
This alone is enough for people to move away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels is a 19th century solution to 21st century problems. Even if co2 wasn't warming the planet (which it is) we should not be pumping gases into our atmosphere. It is an unsustainable situation. It will have to end at some point, so whats the harm in getting there now?
markgg1 1 year ago
@obtree Yes.. im sure your friends are very clever, but the overall majority of people believe we are warming the planet.. ffs even my government agrees. I like to think my government has some very intelligent people advising it. I trust my government. I mean, they are just one source. New Scientist thinks the world is warming. Again, these guys know what they are talking about. I am no geologist, but I cant see how a source as credible as the New Scientist could get this wrong.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 Science is not a democracy.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree Democracy within science adds merit to the scientific idea proposed.
Admittedly science has been very wrong about things, but on this the evidence is too strong.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 There once was a time when public opinion was in favor of a flat earth, or intelligent design, or that light traveled through a mystical ether.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree I honestly cannot see why theres so much hostility. It makes complete economic sense. If we can use the suns energy, we have an INFINATE store of energy for 6 billion years. All we require is the infrastructure to be built, and the energy will theoretically be available forever (if we maintain it well). Hummers can run on biofuels, or hydrogen cells or electricity. Why the obsession with using oil from under the sea. The gulf spill alone is more of a need to move away old technologies
markgg1 1 year ago
@obtree I admit in the short term it will cost money to build the infrastructure.. but this will create lots of jobs and once built that is it.. no need to drill holes in Alaska, or transport massive liners of oil from the gulf to Europe or the US.
This is not a liberal versus conservative debate, which the right have dreamed up.. this is simply sense vs nonsense. The only people benefiting from current situation is huge oil companies. We are letting corporate interest overise common good.
markgg1 1 year ago
@obtree I will stop ranting now and hit the hay. Its 4am in the UK and I'm cold and want to get into bed. The heating's off on campus because they want to save money as the gas from Russia costs a fortune for Europe. Of course if the heat was generated by the suns energy, it wouldn't matter if the heat was left on 24 hours a day all year around.
Free energy... imagine that? Annoyingly we have the technology to do it, but we just cant get the political will to achieve this simple goal.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 Quite a dream you have there. Except that energy is never free. In order to power my computer with solar cells, I discovered (after a 5 min search on ebay and some quick calculations) that it would probably cost me about $6000. And then I will only be able to use it on a sunny day. Since I do most of my computing at night, it will take quite a few years for those cells to pay for themselves. Now what would that investment look like for my house? For a steel industry? etc?
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree cumon now.... The sun also powers the air pressure system, therefore the wind and therefore the oceans, as well as natural processes such as fermentation to create alcohols (biofuels) and photosynthesis which powers all of nature via carbohydrates. I dont just mean solar cells. Also, you and me both know that if capitalism takes hold of green industry innovation and competition will drive down prices. The problem is this energy could be so cheap to produce that it may be unprofitable.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 if you can make that statement seriously then you no have absolutely no understanding of economics.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree And here the problem... oil companies and energy companies will most likely see their product become so cheap they will make a lot less money as they cant use a adam smith style supply and demand on oil, where supply is falling and demand is rising. Using the suns energy means a constant unlimited supply, and demand will NEVER catch up to it as it produces trillons of kilowatts of energy per day. We cant allow corpoate interest to overide huanitys interests on this one.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 as oil becomes too expensive, demand for solar and wind power will increase naturally. The reason there is no private investment in green energy yet is because there is no demand for it. We already have cheaper, more efficient sources in oil and natural gas.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree Also, other more novel approcahes to creating energy can be looked into. Gravity could maybe be harnassed. In a way it is, because the tides are a result of the moons gravity so in some parts of the sea we have underwater generators. Us humans use a tin amount of the enrgy we have potentially around us. The earth and solar system is full of energy beyond our imagination, and yet we still burn dead compressed animals? If advanced aliens existed, they would find us primitively amusing.
markgg1 1 year ago
@obtree one more thing... perhaps I look too far into the future, even before I die. I admit that fossil fuels wil probably last around the same time as my life but I know if something isnt done now and the oil runs out there will be a major crisis resulting in massive economic pressures. Economic pressures lead to desperation, dictatorships and wars. All this pointless suffering when weve got literally trillions of kilowatts shining on our heads giving us a tan.
Its a crazy situation!
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 Again you prove you don't understand economics. We don't just use a resource until there is nothing left. As a resource becomes more scarce, there is innovation and investment into new technologies and self rationing. This process is very gradual and natural. The crisis you are describing is pure fiction.
In fact, if we just stop all this government intervention and let events take their course, it will be a much less jarring transition.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree This is analogous to private healthcare. If a private person sells it, he wants it as expensive as possible, wants you through the door as often as possible. There is 0 incentive to make you healthy, and preventative medicine This is why the USA has the most advanced technological health sector, but has the least healthy citizens in the west and pays the most for it. Same with energy. Oil companies have no incentive to invest in green energy as their product will lose its monetary value.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 anyway, yeah CO2 absorbs energy from the sun and reflects it back to earth, but there is a finite amount of energy that it can absorb.
"The temperature of the earth has gone up quicker than any point recordable in earth history." My geology professors will disagree with you there. I haven't met one PhD geologist who agrees with AGW, BTW. But regardless, is the world really going to end over a 0.2 degree increase? The climate has changed in the past, but we still have polar bears.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree yes, a finite amount of energy per CO2 molecule... the more CO2 molecules, the more energy it absorbs. The temperature has gone up quicker than any point. This is a fact based on all sorts of geological research.
What possible emotional pleasure do I get from claiming the world is getting warmer. This argument reminds me of the morons who think the world is 10k years old. Do they think I have an emotional attachment to a old earth, or a warming planet.. I just believe in facts, simple
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 listen, you are stating all these 'facts' and trying to frame my argument in petty bias, but you have not given me any reason to believe you have any background in science, have spoken to any actual scientists, or have done any of your own research. All you seem to have done is watch CNN and Al Gore's movie. You don't know what you are talking about, so inform yourself, and stop making stupid comments.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree 'no background in science' - Im into a 2nd year of a medical science degree... I think this counts as a background in science. Also as I understand chemistry, CO2 absorbs solar energy per molecule, the more CO2 in the air = more absorption = more heat. Its actually 2st grade science. this 'theory' fits perfectly with the fact that theres a correlation between rising temperature and co2 levels. When oil runs out, were all screwed.
Denying it as Ive said before is simply ridiculous
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 Listen, you don't hear me making overarching statements about immunization or genetic diseases. You don't understand the science, so stop making an imbecile out of yourself.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree No need to start insulting me. We just differ on some aspects of chemistry.
I know co2 absorbs heat, so the more of it in the air equals more absorption. Its very simple. If you cant grasp it, than thats your issue. Global warming will continue whether you understand it or not
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 We have oil for thousands of years, we will not run out any time soon. Also if your so smart how do you say 2st?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 lol.. at this rate if we used the oil we use per year for thousands of years, it would be more in mass than the earth itself
so where do u propose this oil is coming from? a parallel universe perhaps?
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 You have no concept of reality do you, and your math is a bit off.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 I have no concept of reality? Im basing my claim that oil will run out on what the science tells me. I believe the scienc.
If you say theres some sort of conspiracy suppressing the truth, dont respond. I dont deal with paranoia without evidence.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 The science you are referring to is based on man made models that can be made to come out with any result you want. Search a little more on how much oil you think there is, here in alberta alone they estimate enough to last for hundreds of years in our oil sands, the sands in Saskatchewan are double that, and have not even begun to be removed. It is not a conspiracy so much as an altering of the the truth to alarm people into a global energy tax. Don't think they could lie?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 so let me get this straight... the government are falsifying the data so they can tax you more. By taxing you more, they become less popular, and does not affect their own pockets at all. All this also in light of the fact the oil lobby is hugely powerful, much more so than green lobby.
It