Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

the question of "climate change/global warmimig" is a difficult one for this layperson to understand , let alone answer .
personally , i don't like to waste much and don't like other people to waste much either .

but there are often many questions that mrs h and i ask ourselves :
- we are being asked to reduce our driving and conserve fuel ; so i turn on the TV and see dozens of cars tear around the race track burning more fuel in a day than i'll ever use ... so , how do i deal with that - do i ignore what the race cars are doing ?
- we are being asked to cut down on electricity consumption ; so we drive through the city at night and see used-car lots and other places lit up like christmas-trees ... now what ?
- we are being asked to set the thermostat higher in the summer - to reduce use of the aair-conditioner - and lower in the summer to reduce fuel-oil consumption ; so we go to the shopping center which in the summer is often so cold that one has to wear a sweater and in the winter it's so hot one has to take the winter-coat off - and staff are dressed like it's summer - what gives ?
- and water consumption : don't water your lawn , but it's o.k for the golf course to water - maybe i'll start taking up golf :wink: .
hbg(a confused consumer - but still filling the recycle bins :wink: )

0 Replies

All of which dilemmas and contradictions point to the very considerable loss of human freedom (and the potentially dangerous concentrations of administrative power and control) that are an implicit part of the agenda of the AGW cultists.

In a similar vein, Leninists of an earlier age were determined to protect mankind from the predicted ravages of capitalism, and even to improve mankind itself through the creation of "socialist man". Unfortunately they found it necessary to slaughter millions of recalcitrants as a part of their failed program of human perfection. It turns out that their predictions of the ravages and contradictions of capitalism - another flawed theory that captured the imaginations of the intellectual elite of the day - were also wrong.

Those who now presume to forcibly protect mankind from the imagined ravages of CO2, and to create a new, perfect "environmental man" are likely to be just as wrong and destructive to humanity as their predecessors.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

An Irish blasphemer spat
Quote:
Aren't you a bit ashamed to raise an ecclesiastical argument at this stage of the debate? The Catholic hierarchy opposed Gallileo as well. I don't recognize them as an authority on weather forecasting. Besides, the Pope is a German.

Category error. The Catholic hierarchy are also not authorities on human biology but you would possibly hold that they have some relevant voice on the matter of abortion. Ninny.

No blasphemy: no category error either. I believe the question of voluntarily terminating human life indeed has some aspects that do transcend biology. However, I also see no particular reason to codify moral issues in civil law - a principle that cuts both ways in the abortion issue.

I also think that the Rotweiler Pope may be straying too far in the direction of contemporary intellectual fashion & pretense. (perhaps there is something in the water in Europe...)

0 Replies

george wrote :

Quote:

All of which dilemmas and contradictions point to the very considerable loss of human freedom (and the potentially dangerous concentrations of administrative power and control) that are an implicit part of the agenda of the AGW cultists.

perhaps , perhaps ...
but i can also not shake off the feeling that governments (of most kinds and stripes) find it fairly easy to preach to the general population , but are often afraid to deal with businesses that are helpful to them - in one way or another .

so it's easy to preach to the general population about "conservation" , but it would be much more difficult to make an example of the fuel wasted on racetracks (just an example , i don't want to single out race car drivers as the major source of pollution !) .

the older i get the more cynical i get , i admit that freely , but i have also noticed that hardly a day goes by when some business/government scandal does not make the front page - and imo there are plenty who come to the trough to feed .
(but i also have to admit that our currnt political system is probably as good as it ever will be - which isn't saying much ).
hbg

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Aren't you a bit ashamed to raise an ecclesiastical argument at this stage of the debate?

Environmental issues have been church related since ... as long as I can remember

As said some months ago: all active groups engaged in environmental and climat change issues in my small village are run by the churches (though the Evangelical Church is doing much better than the Catholic).

Similar is their activity in other parts of the country.

0 Replies

Well, you have a good example in Alberta, where, with energetic encouragement by both the national and provincial governments they are burning two BTUs of energy from tar sands to extract one BTU equivalent of useful fuel from them (to be burned later).

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I'm laughing that such a concept ever got off the ground in the first place. It truly shows the depravity of the environmentalist religion. That it is corrupt is hardly surprising.

One of the strongest supporters of Kyoto when it was designed was the depravest of all ... Enron (RIP).
Enron at that time because it saw huge benefits for trading hot air. Now, it is replaced by just as greedy WS brokers like Goldman Sachs and the likes.
As long as people are so credulous, snakeoil vendors will prosper.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Aren't you a bit ashamed to raise an ecclesiastical argument at this stage of the debate?

Environmental issues have been church related since ... as long as I can remember

As said some months ago: all active groups engaged in environmental and climat change issues in my small village are run by the churches (though the Evangelical Church is doing much better than the Catholic).

Similar is their activity in other parts of the country.

It will interest me to observe if this "church related interest" also extends to the advocacy of Malthusian concepts of excess infestation of the planet by human vermin. That will yield some potentially amusing contradictions.

I agree with you though, the Calvanists were always more energetic regulators of human behavior and freedom than their Roman opposite numbers.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Enron at that time because it saw huge benefits for trading hot air.

Enron supported it because they would have beeen happy to pass gas through their pipelines after brokering the permits to burn it.

But is it really so wrong to earn money with climate change? Why?

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

but there are often many questions that mrs h and i ask ourselves :
- we are being asked to reduce our driving and conserve fuel ; so i turn on the TV and see dozens of cars tear around the race track burning more fuel in a day than i'll ever use ... so , how do i deal with that - do i ignore what the race cars are doing ?
- we are being asked to cut down on electricity consumption ; so we drive through the city at night and see used-car lots and other places lit up like christmas-trees ... now what ?
- we are being asked to set the thermostat higher in the summer - to reduce use of the aair-conditioner - and lower in the summer to reduce fuel-oil consumption ; so we go to the shopping center which in the summer is often so cold that one has to wear a sweater and in the winter it's so hot one has to take the winter-coat off - and staff are dressed like it's summer - what gives ?
- and water consumption : don't water your lawn , but it's o.k for the golf course to water - maybe i'll start taking up golf :wink: .
hbg(a confused consumer - but still filling the recycle bins :wink: )

hbg,
As long as you see those sermonnings in newspaper alongside with ads for cars or cheap flights to Djerba, be assured that they have nothing to do with the planet or the environment and everything to do with money, influence and the good feelings of self-rightesness.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

But is it really so wrong to earn money with climate change? Why?

They don't earn money with climate change. They earn money with hot air and lies and divert precious human and material ressources from much more urgent problem (poverty, hunger, preventable diseases...). That's WRONG.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I agree with you though, the Calvanists were always more energetic regulators of human behavior and freedom than their Roman opposite numbers.

I don't think that there many Calvinists within the Evangelical Church of Germany (about 35% of all Germans are members there). :wink:

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Walter, I like your graph. And the VW, Lupo, I know a little about this, and it is extremely efficient, but we can't buy it in the U.S. How come?

Because Americans wouldn't like to have a car crash against a big Detroit SUV, being in a Lupo :wink:

BTW, thank you Walter for the consumption graphs. I suspected the fuel consumption per km per passenger is less for a plane compared to most cars. Now I know.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

BTW, thank you Walter for the consumption graphs. I suspected the fuel consumption per km per passenger is less for a plane compared to most cars. Now I know.

That's what no-one seriously ever denied, I think. (Though I don't know and didn't research such. Besides, I understanding such with the end of my physic classes 40 years ago, while you've gor a PhD in physics.)

From the link I gave and you quoted:

Quote:

But we need to consider that in a car there is usually enough space for 4 persons. This capacity is seldom used. Aircrafts do usually not fly half empty but work with capacity use in the range of 70 - 90%. Low cost airlines in Europe usually reach 80% use of capacity. Therefore for example car sharing could improve the values of per capita emissions for cars, while this is hardly possible for airplanes.

A major difference is that the CO2 is released in a much shorter time, since an airplane travels nearly 900 km per hour and a car on a longer distance maybe 90 km per hour.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Enron at that time because it saw huge benefits for trading hot air. Now, it is replaced by just as greedy WS brokers like Goldman Sachs and the likes.
As long as people are so credulous, snakeoil vendors will prosper.

True. There is already evidence in the EU carbon credit trading scheme that it doesn't have much of a positive effect. Carbon credit trading is largely a solution in search of a problem, but one that will certainly enrich the brokers controlling the market.

Even in the U.S. where cheap, high quality coal is plentiful, emission-free nuclear power is already cheaper than coal and much cheaper than the gas-fired plants we are currently building. This, even with a regulatory system that applies significant relative financial penalties to nuclear. The only barrier to its increased use comes oddly from the same quarters that so earnesstly advocate AGW. If the U.S. were to increase its nuclear electrical power generation to just two-thirds the present level in France, we would, at a single stroke, meet the negotiated goals for the ill-conceived Kyoto treaty. No financial incentives would be required to do that - instead we must overcome a psycosis not unrelated to the one behind AGW.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
An Irish blasphemer spat
Quote:
Aren't you a bit ashamed to raise an ecclesiastical argument at this stage of the debate? The Catholic hierarchy opposed Gallileo as well. I don't recognize them as an authority on weather forecasting. Besides, the Pope is a German.

Category error. The Catholic hierarchy are also not authorities on human biology but you would possibly hold that they have some relevant voice on the matter of abortion. Ninny.

No blasphemy: no category error either. I believe the question of voluntarily terminating human life indeed has some aspects that do transcend biology. However, I also see no particular reason to codify moral issues in civil law - a principle that cuts both ways in the abortion issue.

I also think that the Rotweiler Pope may be straying too far in the direction of contemporary intellectual fashion & pretense. (perhaps there is something in the water in Europe...)

What does civil law have to do with the Pope's moral arguments re abortion/capital punishment/murder versus mercy/life/charity or the consequences (particularly to the least among us) of global warming, george?

0 Replies

Nothing at all. My reference to civil law applied to my views of the abortion debate, which I regard as an equally absurd legal/political issue on both sides.

As to charity and concern for 'the least among us' -- those unfortunates have far more to fear from the Malthusian proponents of the AGW cult than they do from me (or the Rotweiler Pope, for that matter).

0 Replies

Although I'm not an admirer of the present Pope at all - you seem to have little to no knowledge about what churches' environmental groups do and what support they get by whom, George.

0 Replies

Outside the USA, I should have added.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I agree with you though, the Calvanists were always more energetic regulators of human behavior and freedom than their Roman opposite numbers.

I don't think that there many Calvinists within the Evangelical Church of Germany (about 35% of all Germans are members there). :wink:

Lutherans, Calvanists -- they all look the same to me.

I still recall Sister Marcella Ann's answer in fourth grade to the question, "Sister, can Protestants go to heaven?". "Yes", she replied, "..if they are very good". :wink:

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know