Alfa Romeo Forums banner

2801 - 2820 of 2952 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
No Human Influence

South China Morning Post, August 11.
Report on a study by the Laboratory of Cenozoic Geology, and the Institute of Geology and Geophysics.
"Found no evidence of human influence on Northern China's warming winters."
And pointed out:
"Driving forces include the sun, the atmosphere, and its interaction with the oceans."
Which is what I was taught many decades ago.
Since then this theory has been confirmed by an immense accumulation of data.
This study out of China adds to the evidence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
South China Morning Post, August 11.
Report on a study by the Laboratory of Cenozoic Geology, and the Institute of Geology and Geophysics.
"Found no evidence of human influence on Northern China's warming winters."
And pointed out:
"Driving forces include the sun, the atmosphere, and its interaction with the oceans."
Which is what I was taught many decades ago.
Since then this theory has been confirmed by an immense accumulation of data.
This study out of China adds to the evidence.
Yes, same, same when I was in the Geology major at Occidental College. However, It doesn't fit the progressive left's agenda...climate change has to be controlled by big government, a world of no borders and one omniscient government, etc. etc.

The world without borders, one government concept is being adopted in varying degrees by the cultural Western World to our own peril. I don't believe China, Russia, N. Korea or others will give up on their self interests...and the theocratic Muslim governments have a one-world-view that differs significantly from that of Al Gore and George Soros'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,646 Posts
But:

Why should a completely innocent child be disadvantaged by the utter randomness of where they were born?


And before you answer "it is that countries responsibility to look after it's citizens", which I of course agree with, it is hardly right that other countries people prejudice them for something they had absolutely no control over. None at all. "We" were simply lucky and born into wealthy and stable countries, but "we" had nothing to do with that. The United Nations needs to be de-corrupted and made useful and America and Russia's head pulled in so they stop using other countries and other people's lives as pawns in their political game to dominate the world's resources. If America and Russia, mainly, stopped this game in other countries; guess what?, many of our current refuges would be happy to stay and live in their stable and safe country. Syria is a perfect example ...

I have a son on the autism spectrum and I now know a heck of a lot about how people judge others, and it is very wrong (and yes before my son, I undoubtedly played the wrong game too). My son did not chose to be on the autism spectrum, he didn't even chose his parents, and yet people will cross streets and kids will tease him. Human beings are the lowest of the low when it comes to how they treat their fellow human beings, on this planet Earth that we ALL share ...

... and to return this post to being on topic; the same is happening with Global Warming. The rich and advantaged do not want to alter their lives, one bit, because it involves helping somebody other than themselves ... and they do not have the capacity to think of others (same with health). If they did, they would pay better wages and share their wealth (and not by tax dodging charities, but by reducing their profits).
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
If you just look at this from the point of view that fossil fuels are a finite resource, you can see where we need to go. The earth may be able to replenish fossil fuels, but not on any timeline that humans would benefit from. We will deplete our fossil fuels one day.

The most intelligent solution then is to prepare for that day by developing an energy source that is capable of sustaining our needs on this planet. If we wait until our current primary energy source is completely depleted, we could end up in a situation where the next energy source is more difficult, if not impossible to develop. Beginning the process of research and develop while we still have our primary source is the best option. To fight against new, renewable energy is nothing more than supporting those that benefit the most from fossil fuels.

Step away from politics, see the problem, find the solution for the future.

Fossil fuels are the reason our lives are as good as they are. It is morally right to use fossil fuels because they provide a much much greater energy output, outside of nuclear power, than any other alternative source by far. Their benefits greatly out weigh their negatives in providing the most bang for the buck. It is morally right that over 1.5 billion people on earth have a chance to get themselves out of poverty and have access to RELIABLE and accessible energy for clean water, heat for their homes, etc. Big Wind (fart!) and Big Solar don't even enter into the energy picture. The land alone needed for these UNRELIABLE monstrosities boggles the mind. And we all benefit from fossil fuels.[/SIZE]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,136 Posts
... and to return this post to being on topic; the same is happening with Global Warming. The rich and advantaged do not want to alter their lives, one bit, because it involves helping somebody other than themselves ... and they do not have the capacity to think of others (same with health). If they did, they would pay better wages and share their wealth (and not by tax dodging charities, but by reducing their profits).
Pete
[/QUOTE]


Well, now that you have signaled your virtue, Pete, perhaps this might be a good time to to move our discussion to some practical considerations of exactly how we can go about making the world into the kind of egalitarian, environmentally sustainable place warmism dogmas say are are absolutely essential to maintain human life on spaceship earth.

I'm not going to enumerate the kinds of world-wide scale structural changes that have been widely discussed by the various international, national, and local governmental entities---all of whom are seeking power over the rest of us---because I'm pretty sure everyone reading and participating in this thread is well aware of what's being proposed. And if you aren't, you should be. If, however, for the sake of discussion we accept the do-or-die climate predictions, then the governmental planners are right: all earth societies both modern and traditional, are going to have to undergo radical restructuring if we are to even approach "sustainability".

Typically, most warmist discussions don't go very far beyond stressing the pressing need for "racial restructuring" but, reading between the lines, it's pretty clear that the only way to remake the planet into a place that's safe for our grandkids to establish some kind of police state to enforce environmental rules. Although done with the highest of intentions, it's still tyranny.

The reason for this is obvious: a substantial portion of the world's population, if not most, are simply not going to willingly alter their lifestyles to the degree warmist dogmas will demand.

Here in America, for instance, the problem of governance is particularly acute since, thanks to our 2nd. Amendment---which was rather conspicuously written as a way of allowing te citizenry to resist tyranny---the creation of a climate-saving police state might well prove difficult in a society were there are actually more weapons than there are people. And, honestly, I think the US is just the tip of the iceberg (pun intended). Just looking at what is happening right now in Hong Kong, I think we have a pretty graphic demonstration of just how people around the world value freedom and liberty. Those people on the streets there waiving the American flag are doing so on purpose.

So here's my point (and I'm directing this question to all of the participants on this thread). Let's dispense with the climate is/is not warming happy talk for a bit and get serious.

Although it would be wonderful if people willingly sacrificed for the greater good, that is highly unlikely. Therefore, some form of l tyranny is going to be necessary to save the planet. In order for that to happen, to make the world sustainable---in order to have a world for our grandchildren, halt the rise of sea-levels, halt the spread of deserts, make sure that our growing populations have enough food, etc., etc. . . . are you willing to support the kind of totalitarian police state societies that will be necessary to make all this happen?

Call me a revanchist-Luddite if you want but I tend to be very self-interested about personal freedom. The kind of liberty and freedom I enjoy in America came at a high cost and is much more important to me than someone else's sense of safety. I'm sorry, but it just is.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Physicist Murray Gell-Mann had a definition of a totalitarian system:
That which is not compulsory, is prohibited.
And this is an elegant description of every ambitious party from Communist to today's Democrats.
Not to overlook school boards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,646 Posts
Well, now that you have signaled your virtue, Pete, perhaps this might be a good time to to move our discussion to some practical considerations of exactly how we can go about making the world into the kind of egalitarian, environmentally sustainable place warmism dogmas say are are absolutely essential to maintain human life on spaceship earth.

I'm not going to enumerate the kinds of world-wide scale structural changes that have been widely discussed by the various international, national, and local governmental entities---all of whom are seeking power over the rest of us---because I'm pretty sure everyone reading and participating in this thread is well aware of what's being proposed. And if you aren't, you should be. If, however, for the sake of discussion we accept the do-or-die climate predictions, then the governmental planners are right: all earth societies both modern and traditional, are going to have to undergo radical restructuring if we are to even approach "sustainability".

Typically, most warmist discussions don't go very far beyond stressing the pressing need for "racial restructuring" but, reading between the lines, it's pretty clear that the only way to remake the planet into a place that's safe for our grandkids to establish some kind of police state to enforce environmental rules. Although done with the highest of intentions, it's still tyranny.

The reason for this is obvious: a substantial portion of the world's population, if not most, are simply not going to willingly alter their lifestyles to the degree warmist dogmas will demand.

Here in America, for instance, the problem of governance is particularly acute since, thanks to our 2nd. Amendment---which was rather conspicuously written as a way of allowing te citizenry to resist tyranny---the creation of a climate-saving police state might well prove difficult in a society were there are actually more weapons than there are people. And, honestly, I think the US is just the tip of the iceberg (pun intended). Just looking at what is happening right now in Hong Kong, I think we have a pretty graphic demonstration of just how people around the world value freedom and liberty. Those people on the streets there waiving the American flag are doing so on purpose.

So here's my point (and I'm directing this question to all of the participants on this thread). Let's dispense with the climate is/is not warming happy talk for a bit and get serious.

Although it would be wonderful if people willingly sacrificed for the greater good, that is highly unlikely. Therefore, some form of l tyranny is going to be necessary to save the planet. In order for that to happen, to make the world sustainable---in order to have a world for our grandchildren, halt the rise of sea-levels, halt the spread of deserts, make sure that our growing populations have enough food, etc., etc. . . . are you willing to support the kind of totalitarian police state societies that will be necessary to make all this happen?

Call me a revanchist-Luddite if you want but I tend to be very self-interested about personal freedom. The kind of liberty and freedom I enjoy in America came at a high cost and is much more important to me than someone else's sense of safety. I'm sorry, but it just is.
I agree re Hong Kong, but the difference there is it is not affecting the whole population, just those that are stuck in Hong Kong.

You must remember I don't agree at all with your second amendment, even if I was American I wouldn't. It is 100% pushed still because somebody at the top of the NRA/gun makers/etc. are making a fortune. It has nothing to do with resisting tyranny. Sure it might have, but that ship sailed hundreds of years ago. It's money, money, money ... heck, from where I sit, all decisions in America are made around money.

I think the absolute worst thing that has ever happened to our population is guns. I will never own one, and I have only ever touched one because a friend of mine wanted to show me it (he had joined some military thing), and because he was a very good friend I showed 5 minutes of pretend interest, and that was that. As he was such a good friend, he also never bought them up again. Miss him.

Also I live in a country where we vote and most of us believe that our government is doing what we asked them to do. If we don't, we change the way we vote. Climate change will/has affected our election results. Then will come laws (not fast enough over here because NZ lives under the lie that we are green ... ), and so on. You live in such a country too, and tomorrow if Trump was to change his mind or be removed in 2020 (?), then the voted in party might believe in your environment more than profits ... but yes I am aware that there are a % of American's that don't believe in climate change. There is a % of the same in NZ, but I suspect a smaller %'age, but again as we don't live as green as our advertisements say, things take a long time (we are years behind Europe for example, unfortunately).

Lastly; personal freedom sailed as soon as computer speed and data storing abilities improved enough. I can assure you that those that want to know about you, know everything they need ... it is not coming, it is already here. Our governments let us believe we are free ... You try purchasing some uranium for example; won't take long and you will have a knock on your front door.

Another example re personal freedom: Before I can drive my 1750GTV again on New Zealand roads, it will need to be registered. To be registered the bare metal shell will have to be inspected by some engineer to ensure the quality of my work is up to standard. This came around because of a string of fatal accidents where poorly repaired cars just feel to pieces. There is no other way I can get this car on to NZ roads, none!
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,136 Posts
Pete, with all due respect (and I mean to say this as gently as I can) you haven't answerered my core question. This is something I'd really like to know and it's also something that, in all the years of our quite reasoned discussion on this thread, not one commenter on this who advocated for climate change has ever been willing to discuss. So, you are not alone in being reluctant to talk about this.

For obvious reasons I hate to use the phrase "uncomfortable truth" but the fact is that the kind of climate emergency being commonly discussed by both advocates and their governmental allies simply cannot be attained unless world societies become demonstrably less free, emergent opposition, active and passive, will have to be oppressed, market economies centrally managed . . . I could go on an on about how totalitarianism works but the hard truth is only some form of police-state governmental model can create the kind of "radical restructuring" necessary to save the planet. So, if I may, I'd like to ask again: are you in favor of instituting the kind of authoritarian government necessary to make meaningful climate change restoration happen?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,646 Posts
Sorry, I thought I had. The answer is I believe I already live in that situation, i.e. under an authoritarian government, so to make it super clear: YES. NZ already has laws that I have to abide by. There will be new laws, yes.

Example: If I lived in Christchurch, New Zealand, and I am prohibited from owning and using a coal fed fire to heat my home, etc. This is because the coal smoke does not dissipate there and it is a law in Christchurch (to my understanding). Another example I am not allowed to drive a Porsche 959 on a public road, because the NZ government has deemed them too fast (this may have changed due to the car now being over a certain age).

And yes, one day that will potentially mean my old internal combustion 1750 GTV will be outlawed. I won't be happy, but accept that, just as I accept the current laws, this will be for the common good of our society as a whole. BTW: We have processes we can use to challenge laws and occasionally they change. That is a normal political and legal process.

America will have similar laws too ...
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,646 Posts
You do realise that our governments already tell us where we get our energy from?
Pete
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
101 Posts
Although it would be wonderful if people willingly sacrificed for the greater good, that is highly unlikely. Therefore, some form of l tyranny is going to be necessary to save the planet. In order for that to happen, to make the world sustainable---in order to have a world for our grandchildren, halt the rise of sea-levels, halt the spread of deserts, make sure that our growing populations have enough food, etc., etc. . . . are you willing to support the kind of totalitarian police state societies that will be necessary to make all this happen?

Call me a revanchist-Luddite if you want but I tend to be very self-interested about personal freedom. The kind of liberty and freedom I enjoy in America came at a high cost and is much more important to me than someone else's sense of safety. I'm sorry, but it just is.[/QUOTE]



You can gauge the amount of freedom in any society by how "messy" and unequal the wealth of society is held by the citizens. I prefer this to the boring sameness of a police state. In America, we have a cultural past where anyone can rise to the top, provided that they make themselves ready, willing, and able. We have hope for a better future. Police states destroy hope.

I must agree that we in America have paid for our freedom with the blood of patriots for many years. Because we paid such a high price, our 2nd Amendment is there as a permanent guaranty that people in government do not become overzealous in their quest for tyranny. We citizens retain the power to remove those in government by force, if necessary. World history teaches us this lesson.

I view this man-caused global warming as an elaborate pretext used by politicians as a Trojan horse to create a global police state. A study of world history will reveal that this same scenario is played over and over, with the citizens ultimately paying the price in their blood. In the United States, we intend to never allow the pendulum to swing so far into tyranny that violence will be necessary to regain our freedoms as human beings. This is the crux of the global warming issue, and as 180OUT so correctly stated, there are other societies that will never give up their plans for self-protection and world domination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,598 Posts
Agree!
I have found so many from other countries do not understand American culture and beliefs.....but they would like to come here and enjoy the results of that culture while trying to make us more like the place they left.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Historical Banners

The intrusion that turned Rome into a murderous police state was enhanced by a banner--the "Genius of the Emperor".
The next great experiment in authoritarian government in the 1500s corrupted the Church into a murderous police state. There were two banners.
The "Infallibility of the Pope" and the "Divine Right of Kings". The later, of course was invented by the priesthood who set themselves as advisors to the crown.
For the last 100 years it has been the "infallibility of the Federal Reserve System".
More recently the "Infallibility of IPCC".
Each massive intrusion ran until bureaucrats had ruined the economy, by spending all the money on utopian visions.
As the money ran out, the public had too much of in-your-face and in your-wallet-government and turned to popular uprisings for relief.
This is what is going on now, and as it persists it could inspire another great reformation.
I'm optimistic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,136 Posts
In order for that to happen, to make the world sustainable---in order to have a world for our grandchildren, halt the rise of sea-levels, halt the spread of deserts, make sure that our growing populations have enough food, etc., etc. . . . are you willing to support the kind of totalitarian police state societies that will be necessary to make all this happen?


Sorry, I thought I had. The answer is I believe I already live in that situation, i.e. under an authoritarian government, so to make it super clear: YES. NZ already has laws that I have to abide by. There will be new laws, yes.
Got it. And thanks, Pete. Or, as Hunter S. Thompson said, just before he blew his brains out: "Relax, this won't hurt a bit" . . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,646 Posts
factotum said:
You can gauge the amount of freedom in any society by how "messy" and unequal the wealth of society is held by the citizens
You guys have been hoodwinked by the rich and powerful, who want you to believe this is what freedom is, while they keep you down and rake in the $'s.

But can we please return to discussing climate change.



There is no difference in personal opportunities between New Zealand and America, other than we are a small economy but if you look around you will find that quite a few NZers are big players on the world stage.

The difference between you and I, I guess right and left, is I am empathetic to other people and learnt, not that long ago, that the core of the right's belief that we are all born equal and hard work will get us all there is absolutely not true. I believed and worked on this treadmill for the first ~40 years of my life ... but mental illness in my family has proved this belief to be a lie. We are not all born equal.

I now agree with what a work colleague used to debate with my younger self: one should judge a society on how they treat the weakest member, not the strongest.

And no police state is required to deal with climate change, as things get demonstrateably worst, most will want to help ... the forward thinking and unselfish people. And there are quite a few; more on the left side 😉

Lastly, you still think you are freer than I, but you aren't. Your government controls what your drive, the fuel it burns, how your house gets energy, what and where you can build, what you can purchase, what you can eat, what is farmed, everything. So it is very easy for them to change the price of petrol, or other petroleum fuels, to move the masses to electric cars if they want to. [Think of all the regulation modern cars have to be built to now, that you "believe" you freely buy, buy nope big brother has already decided what can be sold to the American public. Yes you have choice but, for example, you cannot purchase a modern car with out a catalytic converter or ABS brakes, and now stability control ... ]

And of course they will do this slowly, and maybe give incentives to help the transition.

But of course you still have your little pistol ... hahahahaha
Pete
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Canada's Prime Minister Trudeau admires Chinese Communism, because when it comes to climate it will have the resolve to get things done.
But authoritarian regimes have had the worst pollution and CO2 emissions record.
Not that I'm agreeing with the nonsense that CO2 causes climate change.
And then there was the Prof in Europe who called for the death penalty for "Climate Change Deniers".
And there are the zealots Robert Kennedy Jr. and Dr. David Suzuki who, upon reading this, would put me in jail.
If they had the power.
As I enjoy reminding. Murray Gell-Mann's definition of a totalitarian system:
That which isn't compulsory is prohibited.
Which elegantly describes the climate mania.
At the beginning it was Maurice Strong's ambition to destroy modern industrial society.
And recently high-ups at the UN have been using climate hysteria to impose a one-world government.
"Climate" is just another authoritarian banner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,136 Posts
And as the door on one of the Alfabb's longest running off-topic threads slowly closes . . . I'd like to suggest a good book. Several of us here already know his work, but if you haven't read F.A. Hayek, his Road To Surfdom is an eloquent discussion of the importance of maintaining liberty and freedom in a world of competing political-economic dogmas. I can promise an enlightening, if challenging, read. In its various permutations, warmism militates against liberty and freedom. In Road To Surfdom, Hayek explains why.

From the MisesInstitute:

What F.A. Hayek saw, and what most all his contemporaries missed, was that every step away from the free market and toward government planning represented a compromise of human freedom generally and a step toward a form of dictatorship--and this is true in all times and places. He demonstrated this against every claim that government control was really only a means of increasing social well-being. Hayek said that government planning would make society less liveable, more brutal, more despotic. Socialism in all its forms is contrary to freedom.

Nazism, he wrote, is not different in kind from Communism. Further, he showed that the very forms of government that England and America were supposedly fighting abroad were being enacted at home, if under a different guise. Further steps down this road, he said, can only end in the abolition of effective liberty for everyone.

Capitalism, he wrote, is the only system of economics compatible with human dignity, prosperity, and liberty. To the extent we move away from that system, we empower the worst people in society to manage what they do not understand.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Yeah--on Hayek
His dedication in "Road to Serfdom" is:
"To The Socialists In All Parties"
And before US politics can be reformed, the Republican Party needs to be reformed.
As in by-passing the socialists in all parties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,598 Posts
And reform the education system that is so confused and corrupt.
Some should worry less about rich, successful people and worry more about those who will do and say anything to get power.
 

Attachments

2801 - 2820 of 2952 Posts
Top